Down the rabbit hole

Thank goodness Margaret Somerville stands up for the unborn.

But there was tough competition today with Judith Timson in the Globe and Mail, Chris Selley in the National Post, and Valerie Percival in the Ottawa Citizen. All complaining loudly over Mr. Harper's Maternal Health care initiative and the fact that it will not cover abortion.

But what was really odd, was that Timson thinks she speaks for me. I wonder why she would think that?
"In exactly whose name has the Harper government decided to withhold funds for access to safe abortion in their international maternal and child health initiative? Not in my name. And not in the names of countless Canadians who have relied for years on safe access to the procedure at government expense...Is that really what we want – to deal with abortion again ? Although there has been a slight drop in the number of Canadians supporting full access to abortion, polls show a majority still support it."

She even admits that fewer Canadians support abortion. Curiouser and curiouser.

But what is more troubling than the pro-abortion types' misguided notion that they somehow speak for other Canadians, is their ever increasing shrillness about "women's rights" and their corresponding complete dismissal of fetal rights.

They don't just dismiss the unborn child and its rights, they pretend that the children who are the victims of abortions don’t exist at all. Like some kind of fairy tale dream world where women have "procedures" but let's not talk about what the "procedure" is doing, or how it is done. And please, please, whatever you do, don't show us any pictures of the "procedure".

Nope. Women's Rights. All for one and one for all.

It's elementary

Kelly McParland said in the National Post today that a reader suggested that he must be a religious fanatic, because he didn't support abortion.

His reader said that the vast majority of people who oppose abortion are "fundamentalist religious wackos". McParland said that religion had nothing to do with it. I agree.

But this kind of "reasoning" has never failed to puzzle me. How does the belief, that the killing of a defenceless human is wrong, make a person into a "fundamentalist religious wacko"?

In any event, let's go with the reader's assumption. Let's assume for argument sake that those opposed to abortion are in fact FRWs.

For many FRWs, this is what is called a moral question or an ethical question. Morally, FRWs object to this kind of behaviour. When an act is morally objectionable, FRWs believe it is wrong.

Maybe I should use mathematical constructs to describe this logic for McParland's reader.

if a = b and b = c then a = c

or

If "killing defenceless human being" = "immoral"
and
If "immoral" = "don't do it"
Then "killing defenceless human being" = "don't do it"

See how it works? It's easy.

And the best part of morality is that, it isn't just for FRWs. Anyone can use it.

Mr. Harper must support the abortion debate

Mr. Harper is between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, he has stated many times that he does not support re-opening the abortion debate.

On the other, there are many disturbing signs regarding pro-life advocacy, and freedom of speech issues surrounding abortion.

First, University students are being threatened with expulsion from the University of Calgary for displaying pictures that show what abortion is.

This is not an isolated incident. Similar attacks on freedom of speech are occurring across the nation, including McGill, the University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University and others.

In fact, these occurrences are so disturbing, that even the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, a self proclaimed pro-choice organization, is defending the University of Victoria and their right to pro-life advocacy.

BCCLA President Robert Holmes stated in a press release in February 2010:
"Public money should not be used to suppress free speech. A university and student society that target and suppress one set of views on a matter of public debate while smugly asking for more public funds and for the continuation of a law forcing all students to fund the student society commit an affront to democracy."

Second, pro-life caucus chair, MP Rod Bruinooge, introduced a private member's bill last week, called Bill C-510 or "Roxanne's Law,". This bill seeks to protect women from coercive abortions. The Prime Minister's office has stated that the government will not support the bill.

Third, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have come out strongly opposing Bill C-510 to the point of actually suggesting the criminalization of pro-life activities. Coordinator Joyce Arthur stated:
"The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!"

Fourth, I learned through Access to Freedom Information this year, that Arthur's other extreme pro-abortion group, the Pro-Choice Action Network, received a $27,400 grant to write an extremely vitriolic report, discrediting and condemning Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC.

The report attacks these CPCs by using innuendo, anonymous sources and pro-abortion biased research. I also learned that Crisis Pregnancy Centres have never received government funding.

Why would our government fund extreme pro-choice propaganda but not fund groups that help women keep their child or put it up for adoption?

Finally, and this is old news but a crucial fact nonetheless: since the 1988 Morgentaler decision we have had no protection whatsoever for the unborn; a woman in Canada can have an abortion legally up until the moment of birth, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

What these events tell us, is that without debate, we are in fact promoting abortion.

Yet polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians want at least some protection for the unborn. As recently as March 2010, a survey done for the Manning Centre for Building Democracy by Harris Decima showed that 60% of those surveyed strongly agreed that abortion is morally wrong.

Even the judges in the Morgentaler decision agreed that protection of the fetus was a valid objective and said it was up to Parliament to do this. Parliament never has.

It shouldn't matter where one stands in the debate, whether pro-choice or pro-life. In a democratic country, surely we can all agree that debate and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of our shared values. No subject should ever be taboo.

Canada has no abortion laws to protect the unborn; abortion advocates want to criminalize pro-life activities; the Universities want to shut down all pro-life debate and free speech on campuses; tax dollars pay for pro-abortion evangelism.

Mr. Harper is in a unique position as our duly elected Prime Minister and holds enormous power and authority in this country. He may not fully realize the influence he has had on the abortion debate but these signs are very troubling.

I am not calling for Mr. Harper to support or oppose abortion. I am asking him to tell the country that he supports debate on all topics including abortion.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel speaks about "Catholics for Choice"

I wrote in a previous entry that "Catholics for Choice" can't be Catholics.

In lecture 4 Helping The Church: Exerting Influence Fr. Groeschel states at about 17:00 minutes:
"sometimes the people who claim to represent a division in the Catholic Church have absolutely no-one behind them at all. For instance 'Catholics for Choice' is a paper organization supported by powerful foundations in favour of abortions who are known to be anti-Catholic. CFC has no membership at all....the objectionable people there are very well known foundations that you buy commercial products from, who are supporting the enemies of the Church"

Fr. Benedict Groeschel speaks about the troubles in the Church

Fr. Benedict Groeschel (A Catholic Capuchin priest and psychologist) speaks about the current troubles in the Catholic Church. About media bias against Catholics. About Catholic Faith and Theology. There are four segments in this series. There are also numerous other audio files.

As Fr. Groeschel says, the Church will survive. The Church has already experienced the worst that could happen, back on the first Holy Thursday when the men Jesus had chosen Himself, deserted Him and one betrayed Him.

It can't get worse than that.