Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Slavery and abortion

Great article comparing abortion to slavery by Lynn D. Wardle,
"...The normative significance of abortion-on-demand is comparable in many ways to the normative significance of slavery. 
Slavery rejects the humanity of slaves, while abortion rejections the humanity of children in the womb.  
Slavery denies the personhood of slaves; abortion denies the personhood of children in utero.  
Slavery was based upon the lie that slavery was best for the slaves; likewise, abortion is based upon the lie that abortion is best for unwanted children.  
Defenders of slavery argued that the government had no right to tell slave-owners what to do with their bodies (the bodies of slaves they owned), and defenders of elective abortion argue that government has no right to tell women carrying unborn children what to do with their bodies (and the bodies of those children). 
Southerners argued that they had the right to choose whether or not to own slaves; pro-choice abortionists argue that women have the right to choose whether or not to have abortions. 
The South argued that slavery was protected by the Constitution; pro-abortionists likewise argue that elective abortion is protected by the Constitution. 
Defenders of slavery argued that abolition would lead to chaos in the country, and opponents of abortion restrictions argue that abortion restrictions will lead to chaos. 
Opponents of slavery argued that it was unfair to impose the burden of abolition upon one class (white slave-owners), while opponents of abortion restrictions argue that it is unfair to impose the burden of abortion restriction upon one class (women who want abortions). 
Opponents of abolition argued that slaves were not real “persons,” and advocates of elective abortion (like Justice Blackmun in his 1973 opinion for the Court in Roe v. Wade) argue that unborn children are not “persons” in the whole sense, either.  
Opponents of abolition argued that if lawmakers would leave slavery alone, it would gradually disappear; and opponents of abortion restrictions argue now that if lawmakers will leave abortion alone, it will recede and fade away.  
Slavery was based upon a hierarchical view of race; abortion is based upon a hierarchical view of human life. 
Defenders of slavery engaged in the vigorous suppression of abolitionist speech.  Likewise, defenders of elective abortion impose draconian limits upon pro-life free speech. 
Southerners considered abolitionists to be religious fanatics.  Today, supporters of elective abortion consider advocates of reasonable abortions restrictions to be religious fanatics. 
Lincoln asked “Is a man not a man because he is Black?”  Pro-lifers today ask: “Is a child not a child because she is living in the womb?”..."

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Joyce Arthur's study subtracts from the body of knowledge

I must confess I laughed at this post over at anonymous blogger's blog, about a "major study" by Joyce Arthur. "Fern Hill" even got her "name" on this so called "serious study".

Major and serious are not words I would ever attribute to anything Joyce Arthur writes.

The problem is, this is not at all funny. It looks like just one more witch hunt by Arthur and her pro-abortion friends. These people absolutely hate crisis pregnancy centres. They will stop at nothing to discredit them and bring them down. Why? Are they jealous of the care, love and support these centres provide women when face with an unexpected pregnancy? I think they are. Because all the pro-abortions care about is that women experiencing an unexpected pregnancy should choose to kill their unborn child. They don't care for the woman. And they definitely don't care about the child she is carrying.

A quick look at the "study" tells me that it is just a reheated version of Arthur's previous "study", where she went after CPCs in BC. In fact Brian Norton did a brilliant job of setting the record straight on Arthur's last "study". Which by the way, was funded by a $27,400 Status of Women Canada grant, a grant which Arthur never publicly acknowledged as per the agreement she signed with SWC. See here and here for more on that grant.

In this "study" Arthur and her anonymous friends only reviewed CPC websites. By her own admission this "study" doesn't even address how CPC's actually speak or support their clients.
"An important caveat of this study is that we examined only the websites of CPCs, which may not necessarily reflect their practices or counselling when they speak to clients in person or on the phone."
And then there's this gem. Arthur wants to add to the "body of knowledge" of CPC's.
"The aim of this study was to determine the presence of any deception or misinformation on the websites of Canadian CPCs. Due to the relative dearth of research on CPCs in Canada, we felt it important to add to the body of knowledge on the topic as we seek out opportunities to regulate these organizations. We expected to find that CPC websites would reflect the same type of misinformation and/or deception that other studies and investigations have found that people encounter when patronizing CPCs. While we did find significant misinformation, our study also found that many websites present an unbiased appearance and tend to conceal their agenda or give only subtle indications of it, presumably to attract (and not repel) or even trick women considering abortion into using their services."
Does Arthur really believe her shenanigans, deceptions and misinformation add anything to anything? And trick women? Who is trying to trick whom here? First clue. It's not CPC's.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Facebook and its bias

Exhibit A: Facebook characterizes Patricia Heaton’s pro-life message as ‘anti-abortion’ BY LARRY O'CONNOR

Good article, check it out.

Then these words from actress Patricia Heaton:
"Bill O’Reilly once asked her why she speaks out on the life issue considering the blow back she’ll receive from her industry. “As a Christian, it will not be Barbra Streisand I’m standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life,” she told him."
Something the pro-abortions might want to think about. I know, I know, the pro-abortions don't believe in God. But what if Pascal's wager is right?

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Justin Trudeau - like father like son

Thomas Mulcair and I agree on something. Justin Trudeau is pathetic.  From David Aikin:
"0:33 – We are now 33 seconds into this drama and it is at this point the prime minister makes his move. His seat is on our left as we look at this view, on the right of the Speaker. Trudeau gets up from his seat and moves toward this group of NDP MPs. Ramsay would later say that, at about this point, Trudeau tells these MPs to “Get the f*** out of the way.” Again: The voting procedure has been delayed by, to be charitable, less than a minute when the PM decides to take this action. 
0:40 – Trudeau grabs Brown’s right elbow. As he turns Brown forward, he elbows NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau. The tape clearly shows her in some anguish after she is struck
0:48 – Liberal MPs stand to applaud their leaders’ action, which has moved Brown to the front of the chamber. Brown does not look pleased and his gestures here are not the normal gestures in this ceremony. 
1:06 – The camera angle returns to the back of the House where we can see this clump of NDP MPs still in place. You can see NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair talking to Brosseau. Brosseau exits the frame and, we are told, would exit the House. 
1:14 – Trudeau — who has by now apparently realized he struck Brosseau — rises in his seat and moves back towards the NDP MPs to seek out Brosseau to, one assumes, apologize to her. Trudeau also moves out of frame, seeking the now-departed Brosseau. 
1:22 – Trudeau comes back in the frame and you can clearly hear Mulcair telling Trudeau “You are pathetic!” several times." (emphasis added)
Trudeau Junior reminds me of  Trudeau Senior of fuddle duddle fame, only much worse. Not very attractive in a Prime Minister.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Poland and Hitler and abortion

The Polish compare abortion to Hitler. Makes complete sense since the Polish lost six million souls during the Holocaust, 3,000,000 Jews and 3,000,000 Christians (mostly Catholics).

The Polish know about genocide.

Saturday, May 7, 2016

That the unborn are not “legal persons” is irrelevant

Barbara Kay turns the pro-choice legal personhood argument on its head in the National Post when she discusses Bill C-225 Molly's law:
 "— aims, in the words of abortion-law activist Mike Schouten, to “provide justice for women and families who have chosen to carry their babies to term...” 
"...Pro-choice argumentation was weak in 2008 and remains weak today. One fallacious gambit is that mother and fetus, even though each has her own unique DNA, should continue to be considered one person because their biological systems operate symbiotically. This implies that conjoined twins, whose systems also operate symbiotically, are one person, when they manifestly are not. However, the mainstay of the opposition is the “legal personhood” canard. That the unborn are not “legal persons” in law is true, but morally and historically irrelevant: women, after all, weren’t “legal persons” until 1929, but were always considered murder victims in their own right before that date. 
Hardline ideological feminists, who have a huge influence on politicians and the judiciary (which is why this bill is probably another exercise in political futility), regard the law as their ideology’s handmaiden..."
Ms. Kay has that right. Our hard line feminists scare our politicians to death when it comes to abortion. Joyce Arthur and anonymous blogger "Fern Hill" have of course already spoken out against Bill C-225. No surprise there.

But we know why the pro-abortions are really against Bill C-225. Joyce Arthur said it herself about Bill C-484:
"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion," 
For the pro-abortions, it is very very important that this never be allowed to happen. The legal killing of preborn children must be preserved at all costs.

Even when a woman is attacked and the child she chooses to carry to term is brutally killed.

Friday, May 6, 2016

How to become popular in a hurry - say you support the killing of preborn children

What are the first public words out of Mike Duffy's mouth after two and a half years away from the Senate?
"Minister, I'll make this quick because I know you're on a tight time schedule. I represent Prince Edward Island and there, women in P.E.I. have, for some time, had concerns about access to full medical facilities, medical services for women. That's recently changed, and that's a good thing," 
"Have you thought ... about what mechanisms the federal government might have, i.e. the Canada Health Act, cash, money, to ensure that this service you're proposing will be available everywhere in Canada?"
Minister Jane Philpott thought Duffy's question was "excellent".

Take an unpopular person, decide to become "pro-choice", then ask a pro-abortion question. And voila. You will become the darling of the pro-abortions.

When you want to be liked, it's a pretty good strategy you got to admit.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Catholic bishops - no "right" to assisted suicide

CCCB brief on Bill C-14 (“medical assistance in dying”) to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Bishop Crosby Plénière 2015As clearly stated in its previous statements on this issue, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops absolutely and categorically disagrees with any attempt at justifying or supporting a "right" to assisted suicide or euthanasia. This is based on the unchanging teaching of our Church, derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that these practices are always inherently wrong (cf.Catechism of the Catholic Church 2276-79; St. John Paul II,  n. 66). For this reason, Bill C-14, which legalizes the killing of certain categories of persons, is a fundamentally unjust law. From the Catholic perspective, no amendments could legitimate the inherent evil in the premises behind the proposed legislation.
While the legislation is itself intrinsically and gravely immoral for the reasons stated above, there are particular characteristics of the current draft of Bill C-14 which make it even more damaging and dangerous to Canadian society. For example, it contains no protections for health care workers who refuse to cooperate in so-called "medical assistance in dying" or to give an effective referral, nor to institutions that refuse to provide the service for religious or conscientious reasons. Leaving such protections to provincial legislators or professional organizations (such as provincial colleges of physicians, pharmacists, or nurses) would result in a chaotic situation with conflicting rules between provinces and would effectively prompt the resignation or removal of many health care professionals. It could also potentially force the closure of hospitals operated under religious auspices, most of which are Catholic. These institutions employ thousands of physicians and tens of thousands of staff. At a time when our health care system requires more resources, not less, the federal government should not allow lower jurisdictions to drive conscientious health care practitioners from their professions.
It is also regrettable that Bill C-14 fails in what appears to be an attempt to limit the potential harm caused by legalizing assisted suicide, as in the criterion enunciated in section 241.2(d) (that a person's "natural death has become reasonably foreseeable"). Every person who has reflected on their own mortal existence knows that their own natural death is not only reasonably foreseeable, but indeed inevitable. This "safeguard" will protect no one.
The teaching of the Catholic Church and the stance of the Catholic Bishops of Canada affirm the sacredness and dignity of human life. Suicide and euthanasia are contrary to the most profound natural inclination of each human being to live and preserve life. Furthermore, they contradict the fundamental responsibility that human beings have to protect one another and to enhance the quality of health and social care which every human life deserves, from conception to natural death.
Bill C-14, no matter how it may be amended, is an affront to human dignity, an erosion of human solidarity, and a danger to all vulnerable persons – particularly the aged, disabled, infirm and sick who so often find themselves isolated and marginalized. Moreover, it is a violation of the sacrosanct duty of healthcare providers to heal, and the responsibility of legislators and citizens to assure and provide protection for all, especially those persons most at risk. The passage of Bill C-14, occasioned by the seriously flawed Carter decision, will have devastating effects on the social fabric of our country that cannot be predicted today.
2 May 2016
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is the national assembly of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Bishops. As its principal pastors who officially speak on behalf of the Church in Canada, the Bishops are the spiritual leaders and teachers of more than thirteen million Canadian Catholics. Forty-six per cent of Canadians are baptized Catholics.