Friday, April 27, 2012

The pro-abortions should listen to themselves

I think the pro-abortions are losing it.

The radical feminists just keep dragging out their same, old, tired, boring, urban legend myths, every time they talk. I wonder if they ever listen to themselves:
"abortion is a basic human right."
"abortion is a constitutional right."
"legal restrictions on abortion don't work because women will still have them anyway."

(While we're at it, maybe we should make murder legal too, since people will still murder anyway.)

When Ms. Arthur was asked about a compromise in the abortion debate, she completely ignores the question and instead says:
"I want to respond to what Natalie said about the polls. It[abortion] is too complex an issue to have it accurately judged by polls."

Really? Is that because people are too stupid to understand the questions being asked them?

And because these polls are:
"Commissioned by anti-choice groups or use anti-choice propaganda, the answers can't be trusted."

Take that Environics.

Then Ms. Arthur starts on a new tangent and tells us that:
"it is totally inappropriate to have legal restrictions playing a role in treatment or procedure in medicine covered by law."

Except that abortion isn't a treatment for anything Joyce. Abortion is the destruction of a defenceless human. This is a situation where the law has an extremely appropriate role.

They are really really afraid of this motion, and the abortion debate it's generating. What's happening here, is that the pro-abortions don't want us to talk about abortion because they know whenever the topic comes up, like in Mr. Woodworth's motion, their pro-abortion arguments simply don't hold up to scrutiny or logic. The more we put the pro-abortions on the hot seat and make them defend their radical views, the more everyone will see how what they say doesn't make any sense.

I did notice that Ms. Arthur actually said that the:
"Fetus is biologically human".

Oh my, was that a mistake?

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Educating Francoise (part deux)

Oh dear. Francoise is at it again.

On Monday this week, Ms. Boivin got up again in Parliament to talk about abortion. Now Ms. Boivin can talk about abortion all she likes. That's fine. But it's the strange things she says that makes me twitch.

“Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to denounce certain government MPs' attempts to criminalize abortion. Of course, they know that their approach is extremely unpopular with women who hate it when men try to tell them what to do with their bodies.”

I have to ask myself, exactly which women are you talking about Francoise? Would that be me? Would that be some of my women friends? Because I can let you in on a little secret. Any "approach", by any MP, to put limits on abortion is not unpopular with us, it is actually very very popular with us. Really.

I almost get the impression that you might be thinking that you speak for us women. I have that wrong though, right? Because, and I know this might come as a shock Ms. Boivin, but you don’t actually speak for us at all. Not now. Not ever.

And you do understand that nobody is telling any woman what to do with her body right? This is somebody else’s body. But I think you already know that Francoise. I think you’re pulling my leg.

Then you say:
“That is why these members are drawing inspiration from the Republican Party and using roundabout ways and bogus motions that are based on pseudo-science.”

Ms. Boivin, are you a clairvoyant that you know where MPs get their inspiration from? Wow, lucky you.

And pseudo-science? Let me see...nope, no pseudo-science here: An unborn child is human, since it comes from, you know, a human mother and a human father. Yep. Definitely human. That's science. Biology actually.

And finally this:
“Canadian women have a right to access abortion and this backwards-thinking government cannot take that away from them.”

Francoise I think we’ve had this particular discussion before. And nothing has changed since the last time we spoke.

What is this right to abortion you keep talking about? Did you make that up? There is no Charter right to abortion Ms. Boivin, I don’t care if you say it 100 times. It doesn't change anything.

So for your homework Francoise, please write this 100 times in your scribbler:
"I do not speak for women. An unborn child is not a part of a woman's body. There is no constitutional right to abortion in Canada".

When you're done, we can talk again.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

A female is not a clump

George Jonas on sex-selection abortion: You haven’t come such a long way

Ah, George Jonas. As Carly Simon says "Nobody does it better".

This is what he says:
“Choicers” lose just by noticing the blessed fetus is a female. An extension isn’t a female. It’s a growth, a confidence between a woman and her gynacologist. But a female is a different story. A female isn’t a growth. Not a clump but a soul, she’s not in the realm of obstetrics but of morality. Medical waste has no sex; a female, born or unborn, obviously does.

Once it’s possible to object to the elimination of fetuses on the basis of their sex, it’s possible to object to their elimination, period. Suddenly they come to life. It’s as if they were born, and once they’re born, any decision about what to do with them is no longer a question of a woman controlling her own body, but a woman controlling someone else’s body. A body that’s in her temporary custody; a body she has a fiduciary duty to protect."

And "choicers" out there, please take note. Jonas is neither religious or a social conservative. Just saying.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Abortion petitions include 3,816 names

Further to my good news story about abortion related petitions being read in Parliament, I have learned the actual number of names on the petitions, and the MPs who read them.

I don't know, but I think we really need to continue doing this across the country. We need to continue gathering signatures and telling our politicians that we want protection for unborn children.

Here again are the links ARPA has on their website for the first two petitions below, here and here, for you to print and get more signatures.

We can't stop doing this.

Petitions Regarding Abortion
Presented in the House of Commons during the 1st session of the 41st Parliament


"Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion;

And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible."

INQUIRYMember of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)DATE*NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0374Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)Feb 1, 2012
411-0416Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River)Feb 7, 2012
411-0422Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)Feb 8, 2012
411-0455Mr. Allison (Niagara West-Glanbrook)Feb 13, 2012
411-0457Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain)Feb 13, 2012
411-0484Mr. VanKesteren (Chatham-Kent-Essex)Feb 15, 2012
411-0493Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)Feb 15, 2012
411-0494Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)Feb 15, 2012
411-0495Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)Feb 15, 2012
411-0496Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)Feb 15, 2012
411-0539Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)Feb 29, 2012
411-0540Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)Feb 29, 2012
411-0543Mr. Tilson (Dufferin-Caledon)Feb 29, 2012
411-0553Mr. Komarkicki (Souris-Moose Mountain)Mar 1, 2012
411-0563Mr. Warawa (Langley)Mar 1, 2012
411-0575Mr. Sweet (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale)Mar 2, 2012
411-0576Mr. Rajotte (Edmonton-Leduc)Mar 2, 2012
411-0587Mr. Warawa (Langley)Mar 5, 2012
411-0636Mr. Tweed (Brandon-Souris)Mar 12, 2012
411-0647Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)Mar 12, 2012
411-0648Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)Mar 12, 2012
411-0649Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)Mar 12, 2012
411-0650Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)Mar 12, 2012
411-0655Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)Mar 12, 2012
411-0656Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)Mar 12, 2012
411-0657Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)Mar 12, 2012
411-0673Ms. Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar)Mar 14, 2012
411-0674Ms. Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar)Mar 14, 2012
411-0686Mr. McColeman (Brant)Mar 14, 2012
411-0687Mr. McColeman (Brant)Mar 14, 2012
411-0688Mr. McColeman (Brant)Mar 14, 2012
411-0689Mr. McColeman (Brant)Mar 14, 2012
411-0690Mr. McColeman (Brant)Mar 14, 2012
411-0703Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)Mar 15, 2012
411-0711Mr. Sopuck (Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette)Mar 16, 2012
411-0729Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)Mar 26, 2012
411-0742Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)Mar 27, 2012
411-0769Mr. Wallace (Burlington)Mar 29, 2012
411-0777Mr. Schellenberger (Perth-Wellington)Mar 30, 2012
411-0829Mr. Braid (Kitchener Waterloo)Apr 5, 2012
411-0831Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)Apr 5, 2012
411-0832Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)Apr 5, 2012

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.


"Whereas Canada’s 400 year old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to twenty-first century medical evidence;

And whereas Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending Section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect twenty-first century medical evidence."

INQUIRYMember of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)DATE*NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0677Mr. Hoback (Prince-Albert)Mar 14, 2012
411-0685Mr. McColeman (Brant)Mar 14, 2012
411-0695Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)Mar 14, 2012
411-0704Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)Mar 15, 2012
411-0730Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)Mar 26, 2012
411-0733Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)Mar 26, 2012
411-0768Mr. Miller (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound)Mar 29, 2012
411-0780Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)Apr 2, 2012
411-0783Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre)Apr 2, 2012
411-0810Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)Apr 4, 2012
411-0813Mr. Kamp (Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission)Apr 4, 2012
411-0828Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)Apr 4, 2012
411-0833Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)Apr 5, 2012

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.


We, the undersigned Citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

That the Supreme Courte on January 28th 1988 stated that it is for Parliament to enact the appropriate defences of its legitimate interest in the lives of all subjects, including those yet in the womb.

That a destructive vacuity in the Criminal Code has resulted in the failure of the Supreme Court to strike down the phrase ‘after becoming a human being’ (223(2)) along with the then Section 251 of the Criminal Code;

That this phrase has long exposed to destructive harm a child in anyone’s womb at anytime in Canada;

Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament consider restoring to the Criminal code the prudence it held prior to 1968, by removing the words ‘after becoming a human being’ from Section 223(2).

INQUIRYMember of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)DATE*NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0249Mr. Norlock (Northumberland-Quite West)Dec 7, 2011
411-0357Mr. Norlock (Northumberland-Quite West)Jan 30, 2012

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.


Source: Office of the Clerk of Petitions

Sunday, April 15, 2012


"Evolution is imperfect and often a violent process. A battle between what exists and what is yet to be born. Amidst these birth pains, morality loses its meaning, the question of good and evil reduced to one simple choice: survive or perish."
(From heroes Better Halves [1.06])

I have been trying to understand why women have abortions. I mean really understand, sort of on a primal level.

Recently I had a conversation with someone on the subject who is somewhere in the middle on her views on abortion. Not completely pro-life, not completely pro-choice. She is someone I respect, and who also defends a woman's choice to have an early abortion. In other words, someone who is not an extremist on either end of the abortion debate.

My thoughts below do not apply to the pro-abortions. The pro-abortions are those people, who tell us that abortion is always acceptable and moral whenever a woman decides it is. No if, ands, or buts. They believe in full abortion rights for any and all reasons and vehemently oppose any legal limits or restrictions on abortion. They speak out loudly and usually rudely, any time any other human being has the gaul to suggest that limits should be placed on abortion.

What the pro-abortions motives may be, I couldn't even hazard to guess.

So I am not trying to understand this group and their noisy hateful attack dog tactics. I am trying to understand the reasons a majority of the rest of women have an abortion.

The woman of whom I speak now, is the average woman, the one out there who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant.

She is paralyzed with fear by an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. The way she sees it, either the baby survives, or she survives. The anguish and torture she feels is psychological torture. Because she literally believes that her life is being threatened (rightly or wrongly), she believes that she acts in self-defence. This is about survival for her.

It is analogous to her, to a situation where someone were to physically attack her from the outside, and she reacts to protect her body. Only this time the threat is psychological and comes from within. But the threat is the same, maybe even worse. In both cases she is fighting for her life.

The reason this woman would choose to have an abortion is because of this psychological trauma she experiences from the pregnancy. She feels that to make the trauma go away, she must have the abortion. The pregnancy causes her such anguish that she must stop the pregnancy in order to be able to breathe, to live, to be human and to live her life. She has no other option. She is trapped. This is not about logic for her, this is about survival. For her to survive she must do this.

So why doesn't this woman give the child up for adoption? It is because even though she acknowledges that there will be psychological effects from the abortion, she believes that the psychological effects of giving up her child would be far worse than the abortion. She has the abortion instead.

We must also throw into the mix, the fact that society has normalized abortion to such an extent, that it has become just another medical procedure. The woman knows that it is a 100% socially accepted "solution" to her problem.

And of course, abortions are extremely easy to get; they are paid for by our health care system and most politicians strongly support it and are deathly afraid to speak its name.

They even say that abortion is a "medically necessary procedure" when in most cases it isn't.

In a letter I received from the Ontario Minister of Health in a response to a letter I sent her, she opened up her first paragraph repeating not once, but four times, that abortion is a medically necessary procedure. I stared at those words wondering if she really believed what she wrote. It made me very sad.

Logically we know that abortion is not medically necessary. But the pro-abortions have said it is so often, that we don't even give it a second thought.

Finally, and maybe the most troubling for our anxious woman, is that if she doesn't buy into all this abortion propaganda, she will be attacked by other women (and men) for her lack of belief, her lack of worship at the altar of abortion. If she doesn't buy into the pro-abortions' "abortion rights" bible, then she isn't a true feminist.

Where does this leave us?

It leaves us with concerning ourselves for that women who feels there is no solution but to have that abortion. To encourage her to speak out like "Anna" did about her experience, even when there were hateful anonymous comments against her. I think a lot of women feel like Anna felt. Marginalizing her, or any woman, because she regrets her abortion is not respectful, and worse, it is not helpful.

It leaves us with talking about putting limits on abortion, about debating abortion, about getting our politicians to get over their fear of saying the word.

The status quo is not acceptable. As long as it continues, women will suffer. The pro-abortions have it wrong when they say the opposite.

As a society we need to build in some reason, some logic, and some compassion to the psychological trauma we have imposed on these women.

We need to help her, and we need to help her child. And this will allow her to save her own life--and survive.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

CIHI announces release date for 2010 abortion statistics

I have been in correspondence with Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) regarding 2010 abortion statistics.

They have informed me that they will be releasing the 2010 statistics on April 17th at 3 pm ET.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Holy Thursday

John 17:1-11

`Father, the hour has come: glorify your Son so that your Son may glorify you; and, through the power over all mankind that you have given him, let him give eternal life to all those you have entrusted to him. And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I have glorified you on earth, and finished the work that you gave me to do. Now, Father, it is time for you to glorify me with that glory I had with you before ever the world was.

I have made your name known to the men you took from the world to give me. They were yours and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now at last they know that all you have given me comes indeed from you; for I have given them the teaching you gave to me, and they-have truly accepted this, that I came from you, and have believed that it was you who sent me. I pray for them; I am not praying for the world but for those you have given me, because they belong to you: all I have is yours and all you have is mine, and in them I am glorified. I am not in the world any longer, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep those you have given me true to your name, so that they may be one like us.'

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Conservatives-that-have-been-had lineup grows

My letter in yesterday's National Post:

Re: Conservative Radicalism Goes Missing, Andrew Coyne, March 30.

I’m not sure why Andrew Coyne is so perturbed that fiscal conservatives “have been had.” Why does he think that they are so special? Social conservatives were “had” long ago and continue to be “had” with their faint hope clause that a Conservative majority would mean that Stephen Harper would do something about enacting abortion legislation once he got his majority. Ha! Not to be. Fiscal conservatives, join the lineup. There’s still plenty of room for everyone.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.