Blessed John Paul II allowed 'restrictive measure'

More common sense on gestational legislation from Blessed Pope John-Paul II and Sean Murphy.

Protecting the innocent - why man invented criminal law

In December in the National Post, Mike Schouten commented on Maurice Vellacott's motions M-482 and M-483.

Schouten said:

"The Supreme Court justices of 1988 would never have anticipated a 25 year legal vacuum surrounding the rights of children before birth. They struck down Canada’s abortion law on constitutional grounds, but were very clear that it was the mandate of Parliament to enact new laws protecting pre-born children. In fact, even Justice Bertha Wilson opined as to where protections should be placed when she said, “The precise point in the development of the fetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seem to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” In light of this judgement, as well as more recent jurisprudence in this area, it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to study the impact of the status quo in our law."

A letter writer didn't agree that an abortion law was needed. The letter writer said:

"Any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed. Laws cannot impose compassion and understanding. I feel that any woman who is contemplating aborting her fetus is in acute need of support or treatment. It follows that any action that addresses her mental, emotional or physical health is to be decided as an individual case. The law is not the instrument of choice to handle such a situation."

I responded with this letter:

Letter-writer Ruedi Mueller feels that a law is unnecessary to protect the unborn, as “any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed.” Since crimes against humans always involve emotions (like rape or murder), his reasoning makes no sense. We create laws to protect the innocent; it is exactly why man invented criminal law. Preborn children are the prime victims in abortion and they are incapable of protecting themselves. As a civilized society, it is up to the rest of us to make sure that we provide that legal protection. 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

New Year's Message to Kathleen Wynne

Federal Conservatives don't support all conservatives

Rex Murphy talked about 2013 and how Prime Minister Stephen Harper reacted to the senate scandal:

"As always in a crisis, Mr. Harper drew up the drawbridge and retreated to the fortress, i.e., his political base. There is a genuine hardcore of Conservative followers who will stay with the party however dark the clouds; and when in difficulty, Mr. Harper tends to them and them only. (The Liberals and NDP both can claim a similar core of diehards.) But in Mr. Harper’s case, the power of the Senate scandal was such as to detach even some from this otherwise unshakeable support group."

Here is my response to this in a letter in today's National Post:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Re: For Harper’s Conservatives, 2013 Was All About The Senate Scandal, Rex Murphy, Dec. 27.

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.

I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject. [This motion was deemed non-votable because it was supposedly outside of federal jurisdiction. So how could it be legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?]

As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.

I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

The "logic" of being "pro-choice"

One of the things I most love about pro-life people is how logical they are. They don't hide behind ridiculous euphemisms like that all time pro-abortion favourite "pro-choice".

Randy Alcorn gives us an example of this superb logic in this piece.

I'd love to see a pro-abortion write a similar article defending their favourite word. Of course for such an article to be as effective as Alcorn's article, it would have to be logical, which of course is impossible. So it will never happen.

Alcorn ends with this:

"Pro-lifers must never argue against choice—that’s a battle that can’t be won, and shouldn’t be fought even if it could be won. Rather, we must argue against the real issue—abortion. 

Whenever we hear “pro-choice,” we must ask, and urge others to ask, “Exactly what choice are we talking about?” 

If its abortion, the question is, “Do you think people should have the right to choose to kill children?” By opposing abortion we are not opposing choice in general. We are opposing one choice in particular—child-killing. 

Consider the popular pro-choice question, which I’ve seen on bumper stickers: “If you don’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” It’s intended as a discussion stopper. But notice how choice is substituted for abortion. When we insert words that reflect reality, the question becomes, “If you don’t trust me to kill a child, how can you trust me to raise a child?” . . . Huh? 

When we oppose the “right to choose” rape or “the right to choose” abortion, we aren’t opposing a right. Rather, we’re opposing a wrong. And we’re not narrow-minded and bigoted for doing so."