Sunday, April 12, 2009

Visitors Please Note This Blog Is Inactive

Please note that in a posting dated February 17, 2008, it was announced that the Vote Life, Canada! project, as well as the work of this blog, was to be suspended due to lack of financial resources.

Because a great deal of effort has been put into this blog and because it still serves as a valuable resource for online searches and surfing, the blog will remain accessible.

I encourage readers to visit my other blogs to see if they may be of any interest to you.

Once again, I close this entry with the same reminder to the faithful,

Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not requite man according to his work?
Proverbs 24:11-12.


Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Dr. Peter Kreeft: Pro-Choice People are Insane

This report is about a week old but is certainly worth highlighting.

Dr. Kreeft is one of the pre-eminent Catholic philosophers of our time. I remember being greatly edified with a series of his audio messages just over a year ago. In particular, his message entitled “How to Win the Culture War” seemed so profound yet so Christian in its call to action.

Recently, Dr. Kreeft delivered an address at the Annual Parish Respect Life Coordinator Conference in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Joseph Wemhoff was present and took extensive notes during the talk, summarized in this report.

Jam packed with insight and nuggets galore, Kreeft’s address, "We are living in a spiritual Hiroshima," is challenging for all Christians but will especially appeal to Catholics.

Here’s some reference to Kreeft’s comments about the insanity of “pro-choice” mindset.

Pro-choice people will not-indeed, cannot-listen to reason. Pro-choice people are insane and will not convert to reason-they will attempt to convert reason. Dr. Kreeft cited several cases. In one of his books-which, he bemoaned, are read only by pro-lifers-he made an airtight, logical argument that tolerating abortion is tantamount to tolerating infanticide. Confronted with this logic, pro-choicers said, yes, Dr. Kreeft, you just showed us how infanticide is now OK.

Well worth reading the whole thing.

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 27, 2008

C-484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

Published today in the editorial section of The Telegram, Newfoundland & Labrador's daily provincial paper.


C484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

by Eric Alcock

Lane Jr. was 27 weeks old, still in the womb, when his mother Olivia Talbot was fatally shot twice in the head in 2005 by a childhood friend. Baby Lane perished too. Olivia had been shot three times in the abdomen as well. No charges could be laid in Baby Lane’s death.

When Aysun Sesen, 25 and seven months pregnant, was brought to hospital in October 2007 with multiple and fatal stab wounds to her abdomen, her fetus still had a faint heartbeat but died shortly thereafter. Her husband was charged with her slaying. No charges could be laid in the unborn child’s death.

Five pregnant women have been murdered in Canada in the past three years. Unquestionably, the torment of the grieving families of the victims due to their double loss is compounded by the impossibility of securing justice for their newest family member. They say society refuses to recognize their loss. How profound their pain!

Bill C-484 brings justice to these unborn children and their families. C-484 is titled “Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” and will amend the Criminal Code to prosecute attackers who injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of a crime against the mother.

Thus far, the word “abortion” is as distant from the discussion as green cheese. Why? Because C-484 has nothing to do with abortion. The bill explicitly excludes abortion. Clear headed and fair minded Canadians obviously agree. An Angus-Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians support this legislation, with only 19% of women suspecting the government of a sneak attack on abortion rights.

Joyce Hancock of the Newfoundland and Labrador Feminist Coalition recently captured the attention of The Telegram by claiming the federal conservatives were using C-484 as a back door attack to outlaw abortion.

Ask Hancock what she sees in the bill and she’ll tell you abortion. But I’ll let you in on the secret here. What she really sees is a law that recognizes the fetus as a distinct entity, separate from the mother and worth something. And that scares her because radical feminists and abortion advocates have unceasingly drummed into Canadians that, in effect, the fetus does not exist until it’s born. That’s their justification for abortion, which, incidentally, happens to kill the fetus every time. But it’s no excuse for fear mongering and misrepresentation over C-484.

They’ll tell you the bill grants a “form of personhood” or legal status to the fetus. It plainly doesn’t. They’ll try to sidestep the fetus by saying the “real issue” is domestic violence, not losing an unborn child, or that it does nothing to stop violence against women. Perhaps they should check the title of the bill. It’s not a domestic violence bill. We have those already and if they’re ineffective, let them put their energies into improving them.

They’ll tell you the bill blunders through a loophole in favour of perpetrators of domestic violence or that double charges won’t change anything because criminals serve concurrent sentences anyway. False—they’re grasping at straws.

Liberal MP’s in our province voted against this bill. Provincial Opposition Leader Yvonne Jones immediately pledged support for Hancock but admitted she hasn’t even read the bill! How telling. Shame on them all!

Get fully informed about C-484. Visit MP Ken Epp’s website where you can examine the bill from every possible angle. Contact your own MP as soon as possible and urge support for this bill which corrects a serious flaw in our justice system.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Moral Arguments in Defense of the Unborn Too Rare

Today is International Day of the Unborn Child 2008. For more blog postings related to this event please visit Big Blue Wave for reports.

I’ve chosen to post an article by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. In this short article Greg shares his grave concern for the pro-life movement because of fairly recent trends which focus too much on the woman in the debate over abortion. He claims, and I believe rightly, that we are becoming more and more reluctant—and losing our ability—to advance moral arguments in the defense of the Unborn.

If our actions and our behaviour in general are not expected to be informed by sound reason or principles (did I hear someone mention “absolute truth?”) then on what will we base our lifestyle decisions?


Abortion: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em?

Gregory Koukl

The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement, one worth considering.

The problem: More and more pro-lifers refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained if the debate centers principally on the morality of killing the unborn.

Paul Swope calls it “a failure to communicate” when right-to-lifers focus primarily on the unborn instead of on the felt needs of women. “The pro-life movement must show that abortion is actually not in a woman’s own self-interest,” he says. Reframing the debate will enable the movement to “regain the moral high ground in the mind of the American public.” The message is clear: Focus on the life of the mother, not the death of the child.

But it’s hard to imagine how appealing to self-interest could be an effective general strategy. Here’s why: It’s almost always in a woman’s short-term self-interest to abort. This is precisely why the pro-abortion side has been effective. A focus on felt needs favors death, not life.

How can we “regain the moral high ground in the mind of the public” if we retreat from the moral debate? The whole point of an ethical argument is to turn people from selfish interests to what is right. Felt needs are the problem, not the solution.

This approach completely sabotages the pro-life position. Crisis pregnancy centers do not exist to handle pregnancy (hospitals and clinics do that). They handle crisis pregnancies, those that will likely end in abortion. They don’t exist for the woman, strictly speaking, but for the child whose life is in danger. Women should not have abortions precisely because abortion is a moral tragedy. If not, then why oppose it?

By contrast, this new tactic implicitly promotes the vice of selfishness instead of the virtue of sacrificial motherhood. Ideas have consequences, and this one may have, as Frank Beckwith observes, “the unfortunate consequence of increasing the number of people who think that unless their needs are pacified they are perfectly justified in performing homicide on the most vulnerable of our population.”

Shifting the focus away from the unborn is morally disastrous, undermining the legitimacy of the entire pro-life case. Our position just is a moral one, period. Abandoning the ethical foundation for a trendier message means the pro-life movement no longer has any reason to exist. Instead, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Our growing reluctance to advance moral arguments and instead focus on the self-interest of the mother is a tacit admission we either don’t have a moral case to offer or that it simply doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant. In either instance, pro-lifers have not just abandoned the moral argument, they’ve abandoned the fight altogether. This we cannot do.


Labels: ,

Saturday, March 15, 2008

The Fight Against Homosex—and Other Evils

I’m not surprised that some culture warriors are disappointed with my recent article entitled “It’s Not the Homosex, Stupid.” The article didn’t make much of a splash but one or more outlets at least linked to it. Most of the feedback I have received has been positive, but discussion of “sterile sex” sharply divides the population into two camps and I must confess that only the smaller camp seemed impressed.

But I am surprised that it elicited so few responses and so I conclude from that fact that either 1) there was sufficient merit to my argument to preclude a refutation or 2) it simply didn’t rate high enough in the interest department for readers to take the time to read, comment or respond. Who knows—given today’s levels of confusion and apathy—perhaps it was an odd combination of both.

For those who did read the article—thank you!—but who remain unconvinced and disappointed, I offer the following additional commentary, hoping it will prompt a careful re-read and maybe even trip the switch leading to the new paradigm shift in thinking which I maintained was necessary to make gains on the culture war.

I’ll start by expanding on the metaphor which I proposed in the article because in so doing it will likely have more punch than another 1500 words of similar argumentation on the subject.

Early in the piece I asked

“What would you think of drivers who ignored red lights but who regularly demonized speeding drivers as the real enemies on the road?”
And then towards the end I summarized,
“It’s like trying to engineer more impact resistant cars rather than require drivers to stop at red lights. At this stage, it seems we have even forgotten the red light is there, or perhaps by now we have removed it entirely from the intersection.”

Let’s imagine an intersection where such an odd development actually took place. Imagine people started running the red light—for reasons which they thought were good at the time—and after a number of years more and more people were ignoring it. In the meantime, accidents at the intersection had started to increase but people’s habits and attitudes regarding the light had changed and it was rare to find anybody stopping any longer for the light. Practically nobody wanted to hear about or consider the role of that outdated red light.

In the meantime, a whole new subculture had been developing at this intersection. Ambulances and paramedics were more and more a frequent sight due to the crashes, injuries, and even deaths taking place there. The local newspaper had special reporters assigned to cover the happenings at the site and to tell the stories of the victims. Journalists from outside the city and the region were often writing on the phenomenon. Tow trucks were found parked as close as possible to the intersection in hopes of being the first to haul away the crumpled wrecks. Fire trucks were required to make scheduled passes of the intersection. There always seemed to be a crew of automotive engineers present from one major carmaker or the other, taking notes on how to make their cars more impact resistant in order to increase sales to the people in the area.

Over time, hundreds of people had found full time work—even a calling—to give themselves to saving lives and making a safer intersection. Countless theories and strategies were being offered and implemented to moderate the damage taking place at this notorious location. Sidewalks had been changed to protect pedestrians; signs saying “Be Careful” were posted everywhere; lighting at the intersection had been changed; etc., etc. Some blamed the media for their biased coverage of developments at the intersection; others said it was all caused by those who were speeding through the intersection; others blamed the increasing numbers of new—and foreign—residents to the area; many others attributed it to a societal breakdown in driving ethics and were busy trying to reform people’s thinking.

At some unknown stage, kids had noticed the strange looking red light peering down at them from the center of the intersection and had put out its eye with a well aimed stone. News reports had called for a crackdown on youth crime.

“Preposterous scenario!” the reader might exclaim.

Yes, I agree that it’s rather unbelievable, in the context of an intersection and a red light. What’s most unbelievable though is why people in the above city who had been actively engaged in helping the injured, consoling relatives of the dead, writing stories about the tragedies, re-engineering cars, moving sidewalks, posting signs, etc. were not screaming at the same time: “Something has to be done about this light! Everybody is ignoring it!”

When I point in my article to the disused and maligned red light, it is these very people—the ones most busily engaged in helping at the intersection, so to speak—who protest that criticism of their efforts is counter-productive to the common good. Usually, they cite the absolute necessity of continuing their work of vigilance, education and cleanup at the intersection and they miss entirely the point of getting the red light fixed. To them, I suspect, this suggestion is—in computer language—entirely un-processable. It’s impractical and sub-consciously dismissed because to them the red light is simply a relic of the past, an odd and ancient restriction of their right to drive on the road as they please—and as everyone else drives.

Some of the critics dismiss my point by claiming that the principal evil of running the red light is only one more evil in a long list of evils occurring at the intersection. They cite the evil and perversity of those who speed through the intersection because that’s what causes the most serious accidents. Others suggest they are fighting the evil misrepresentation by the media of the truth of what happens at the intersection. Others claim that in order to keep this kind of chaos from spreading to other parts of the city they’ve had to engage in the political process so as to promote laws to protect the innocent. These critics seem to be saying that since we’re all fighting various evils—but the same battle—I shouldn’t be zeroing in on the red light issue.

The argument about fighting various evils holds as much weight with me as claiming that the woman who is raped bears equal responsibility as the rapist because she happened to be dressed attractively. Perhaps it was provocative dress but the rapist is the one who committed a grave infraction of the law and who needs to be punished. Focusing on the woman’s behaviour without acknowledging and addressing the principal evil is totally irresponsible.

Perhaps there are better examples in this context but, similarly, the ones who run the red light [with impunity] are the ones committing the grave offense—according to the longstanding tradition and wisdom of Western civilization. It makes little sense to go after the woman in attractive dress or the speeders who are substantially ignorant of the purpose of the red light. Couldn’t we admit they have been conditioned by the longstanding behaviour of the good folks who have taken the liberty of altogether disobeying the injunction to stop for the light—and then setting up their own standard of carefully breezing through?

And besides, don’t we have a responsibility, insofar as possible, to trace evil to its roots and lay the axe to the root of the problem, not to its branches?

At the very least, shouldn’t the good folks who are tending to the challenges and tragedies daily unfolding at the intersection be consistently screaming “The light! The light! They’re running the red light! Someone needs to get a ticket!”

Bear in mind that the entire chaos taking place at this intersection, along with its attendant subculture, would disappear overnight if the red light were re-instituted.

That was my point and I made a case for it in the best way I could in short readable fashion. That’s all. If someone would like to refute my argument, fine. But to do so, we’ll have to get down to the particulars of the matter without gross misrepresentation of my thesis.

And I’m ready to respond to particulars.

Labels: ,

Monday, March 10, 2008

It's Not The Homosex, Stupid

by Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada!

Note to the reader:
Commentary on a disturbing trend

With all due respect to savvy Mark Steyn who quipped “It’s the Demography, Stupid,” I wish Steyn would have pushed back for us the curtain of Western society’s bedroom a little further in order to give us a glimpse of the smirking elephant in the closet. Heaven knows we desperately need a paradigm shift in our thinking about sexual “freedom” in the bedroom.

Is it my imagination or do you notice that a great many “conservative” culture warriors—individuals and organizations, Christians and otherwise—have taken to lobbing grenades at those promoting and engaging in homosex, making that the defining strategy, if not obsession, of their war? According to them, among the top threats to our civilization is the “homosexual” agenda.

So let me ask you. What would you think of drivers who ignored red lights but who regularly demonized speeding drivers as the real enemies on the road? Comical? Yes, but consider this. Heterosexuals who rail against homosex, which indeed is a particularly odious variation of sterile sex, are—with strikingly few exceptions—themselves egregiously addicted to their own pleasurable variety of sterile sex. Equally comical, of course, but only if you consider sterile sex per se to be in a league with dangerous behaviours such as running red lights.

But please don’t jump ship at this point. Hear me out. I know that our post modern society, parroting the relativism of its enlightened pulpiteers, considers this subject settled and entirely off limits. Any suggestion to re-open it is probably constituted an offense in itself—a possible relapse to a prudish repressive sexual ethic of Victorian times.

"But we believe in real marriage, the traditional kind, one man and one woman for life, and sex only in that context. That’s the correct standard because it’s God’s standard. A married man and woman can make their own decisions in good conscience about the kind of sex they engage in. It’s nobody else’s business."

Indeed, that’s the claim, but tragically these days it rarely goes beyond a claim. For too many conservatives, yes, and Christians also, who normally relish opportunities to expose politically correct speech, the lack of reasoned debate and evasions of the truth, a remarkable about-turn takes place when the truth concerning sexual disorders gets a little too close to home.

"Whoa there! Truth? Disorders? According to who?"
Can it be a shock to the reader that throughout two millennia of Western civilization—as well as nearly two millennia of Jewish thought which preceded it—the moral consensus on sterile sex could be summed up like this: All sexual activity, both heterosexual and otherwise, practiced with a view to circumvent procreation constitutes a perversion of God’s order and an abomination.

Here we could take our pick of sources, from the Early Fathers through to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other reputable preacher, bible scholar or theologian, right up to the early and mid 1900’s. All—without exception—considered these acts as “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong.”

Thus we had the American and Canadian laws which prohibited the sale and distribution of devices that aided in such perversity and which were not rescinded until the 1960’s. Thus we record the witness of some of Western society’s most public figures, such as U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who matter-of-factly labeled the practice of birth control as “the capital sin” against civilization.

But are such ideas peculiarly Western, or even Christian? A surprising number of non-Western cultures throughout history fully squared with Christian teaching on this point. Mahatma Ghandi, a world famous reformer and Hindu, condemned sterile heterosex as a corrupter of morals, a destroyer of marriage and a further degradation of women.

But regardless, truth—the old-fashioned objective kind—is no respecter of cultures and the fallout in our society from a denial of this particular truth has been debilitating. Take note of the Anglicans, the first Christian denomination to break rank with the faith of their fathers on this major doctrine. They formalized the opening of a Pandora’s Box in 1930 by allowing certain exceptions for sterile heterosex and are now being rent asunder by the practice of sterile homosex in the bedrooms of their Bishops. Coincidence?

The extreme break with Christian tradition represented by this acculturated disorder raises serious questions about just how much hostility towards God we have harbored this past generation or two. Some say our rejection of God—played out in this sexual arena—has so cursed our Western society as to account for not only our sex-crazed degeneracy but also family and marriage deformities and breakups, the abortion holocaust, dangerously higher quotas of immigration due to falling birthrates, the growing threat of Islam, the secularization phenomenon with its evil twin Christianophobia and a mounting civilizational self-loathing.

This is a hard pill for many to swallow. But can we admit this much at least: Steyn got it perfectly right when he prophesied the death of Western society due to reproductive sterility. Not for a moment did he suggest that even ten thousand new conferences and/or books on Islam, the tyranny of homosex, the battle for marriage and the family, secular humanism or Christophobia would save us. No, very clearly he stated that it was the question of birthrate which we have refused to address. That alone will cause our society to implode. Steyn put his finger on the precise nature of the problem. Likewise the solution, if it was any closer, might jump up and bite us.

The yearning of many contemporary Christians for a cultural fix through revivalist and “biblical” calls to repentance must also take the birthrate—and sterile heterosex—into account. Though some will contest the point, it must be admitted that any conversion wrought through the preaching of a Whitefield, Finney, et al will not only demand our hearts get right with God but will necessarily reinstitute cultural prohibitions and taboos supporting the age old and exegetically superior biblical interpretation of the sin of Onanism.

The very thought makes many shudder and some to say,

"Surely, God, we can instead pay women to have babies, still hold on to our hard earned sexual “freedoms” and save our future. Otherwise, God, this is really going to hurt!"
The suggestion that our future hinges on the abandonment of sterile heterosex is utterly disconcerting. It’s too much to grasp—let alone admit—that old fashioned traditional Western wisdom on sexuality was spot on.

But no, it was much more than that. It truly was a civilizational bulwark.

Preachers and pundits would do well then to cease from their various crusades against homosex, Islam, etc. in order to refocus their energies and resources to formulate a new strategy which targets the real enemy. By attacking the ideology and behaviour which is directly fuelling our demographic demise, our odds of making gains in this war are markedly improved.

Another point must be raised. The defense of current phony and lethal sexual “liberties” may be worthy of the label progressive but hardly worthy of the label conservative, and certainly unworthy of the name Christian, at least historically. Such perversions of true liberty were legitimized by the victories of yesteryear’s liberals yet they currently enslave us because they are defended by today’s “conservatives.” Conservatives must seriously examine their own complicity in the sterile sex agenda—which has aided in the destruction of society and has rightly identified them as co-conspirators—and be encouraged to instead stand in defense of established Western wisdom.

Conservatives must decide what it is that they are fighting to conserve. Indeed, what else deserves conservation, other than the collective wisdom and institutions central to Western thought and civilization? Isn’t this precisely why conservatives fight unhesitatingly against abortion, attacks on marriage, disintegration of family, pornography, lowering of morals, etc? Yet why have we not been fighting the one mortal enemy which Western wisdom has explicitly warned—in loudest fashion this past 100 years—would spawn precisely such an epidemic of evils? Sterile heterosex is a beguiling demon of tremendous significance and must be opposed with all our energies and by all possible means.

Instead, we have been trying to beef up our society in order to withstand the intense battering spawned by our own endorsement of sexual license: Educate about the radical homosexual agenda. Expose the dangers and tyranny of secular humanism. Equip Canadians to confront the threat of Islam. Bolster the family and marriage and fight those who attack it.

It’s like trying to engineer more impact resistant cars rather than require drivers to stop at red lights. At this stage, it seems we have even forgotten the red light is there, or perhaps by now we have removed it entirely from the intersection. Is it any wonder the “culture war” is being lost?

So yes, it is the behaviour and specifically it’s sterile sex—of all brands. With great courage, it needs to be identified as such, properly condemned and duly proscribed.

Which again brings us back to Steyn’s famous line and his sober closing:

"It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters."

Labels: , , ,

Friday, March 07, 2008

Yes Virginia It's Alive and It's Human and It Needs Protection

Suzanne posted video of her recent ultrasound. Wow!

Labels: , ,

Judie Brown, Personhood Amendment and Catholic Bishops

Judie Brown of American Life League asks some of the same questions I’ve been asking lately.


We remain steadfast, but…

By Judie Brown

Over the last few weeks, something rather bizarre has occurred in the pro-life movement and it is difficult for me to get my arms around it. So, I have decided to share the puzzlement I am experiencing in the hopes that others, upon reading this, will join me in a fervent Lenten prayer for healing.

This past January 17, as a personhood proposal was being presented as a way to amend Georgia’s state constitution, the two bishops in that state made a public statement in opposition to it. They wrote, “As the Catholic bishops of Georgia we, along with our brother bishops throughout the world, have unceasingly advocated for the sanctity of human life and continually supported legislative efforts to increase protection of human life.”

They claim to agree with the “objectives” of the proposed state constitutional amendment but oppose the approach because it “does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia.”

A few weeks later, on February 26, the two Catholic bishops in Montana issued a statement expressing their views on a proposed personhood amendment to the Montana state constitution. They wrote, “We, the Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain steadfast in our commitment to defend human life in all of its stages, from conception to natural death.”

They went on to commend the “objective” of the efforts to amend the state’s constitution, but pointed out that they support efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution rather than the state’s. They wrote that they “do not believe that CI-100 is the most beneficial venue to pursue necessary change.” They listed several strategies which they deem appropriate at the state level, including funding pregnancy centers, providing support for expectant mothers and passing a law requiring parental notice with judicial bypass prior to a minor acquiring an abortion.

Two days later, the Colorado Catholic Conference issued a statement regarding the proposal by Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Colorado state constitution with personhood language. In that statement, the Colorado Catholic Conference said, “We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion… but we do not believe that this year’s Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to pursue this issue at this time.”

The Colorado conference denied that any of the bishops had lent their support to the personhood initiative being promoted by Colorado for Equal Rights even though Bishop Tafoya, one of the three bishops in Colorado, had his picture taken with the campaign leader, Keith Mason, and had given every indication that he supported the effort.

The thread that ties these three separate actions together is the realization that even though these seven Catholic bishops in three states all share the goal of doing all they can to end the slaughter of the innocents, they also agree that personhood amendments to state constitutions are not realistic, timely or the best way to do things. Statements like those I have just excerpted are the source of my confusion.

For the record and, if I may say so, for the babies, allow me to point a few things out.

It was not anyone in the pro-life movement, but rather United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s [abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

In other words, if those who understand that a preborn child is a person from the point of his creation want to restore absolute legal protection to children, then personhood must be established in the law. Justice Blackmun did not tell us how personhood could be established, but he did give us a clue and this is why so many pro-life activists have chosen to do what they can to propose personhood amendments to the various state constitutions. The hope is that one of these proposals will be passed by the people and if it eventually arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court, the actual merits of personhood will be argued.

Further, on March 7, 1974, Cardinal Humberto Medeiros spoke at a United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the entire National Conference of Catholic Bishops and told the senators that any proposed constitutional amendment “…should clearly establish that, from conception onward, the unborn child is a human person in the terms of the Constitution.”

In that same statement, Cardinal Medeiros also made it perfectly clear that every proposal should be “universal and without exceptions.”

So, a totally pro-abortion Supreme Court justice and a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church both came to the same conclusion: Personhood is the key to ending the tyranny of the abortion empire in America. And yet when we have three actively dedicated pro-life organizations pursuing the very goal that Cardinal Medeiros encouraged, we also have Catholic bishops publicly distancing themselves from such efforts and opposing them in a variety of ways.

This is discouraging, but not surprising. In fact, it is a harbinger of things to come if those committed to pro-life principle do not press on rather than succumb to a spirit of despair.

Now is not the time to accept defeat simply because of the negative statements coming forth from Catholic conferences whether in the east, the west or anywhere in between. We cannot change the statements of those Church leaders who have chosen to oppose personhood efforts, but on the other hand, we cannot abandon the very principle that is foundational to all pro-life efforts not only in Montana, Georgia and Colorado – but everywhere else.

Among the many legal minds who have contributed to the fundamental strategy that underlies the necessary pro-life legal efforts in these three states is that of the wise Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice. In 35 years, he has never changed his perspective on personhood. What he said in 1973 he continues to say today. He teaches that it was the denial of personhood that was the foundation for everything that the Nazis did to the Jews, the Christians and others under their regime. The idea of relegating entire classes of people to subhuman status was the crux of the Nazi euthanasia program and all the gruesome acts that followed it.

Professor Rice ties that very attitude of annihilation by dehumanization directly to the abortion industry of today. And as he has written, the affirmation of the non-personhood of the preborn child means that the particular human beings who fall into this category are subject to all manner of cruelty and abuse, including death because they have no rights – they are not human beings according to the law.

This alone should give rise to a total advocacy of personhood on the part of every single pro-life American in our day and age. Whether a Catholic prelate or a man on the street, there is no denying that the culture of death now has a tragic grip on the thought process of those in authority in our nation and that must change.

As Professor Rice so eloquently wrote, “Roe applies precisely the principle that underlay the Nazi extermination of the Jews, that an innocent human being can be declared to be a non-person and subjected to death at the discretion of those who regard him as unfit or unwanted. The justices, who triggered the abortion avalanche by their own free decision, are no more defensible than the Nazi judges who acquiesced in the crimes of that regime and the functionaries who administered its decrees at Auschwitz and similar places.”

As if that were not enough, he concluded on this sober note, “The Court will allow states to enact marginal restrictions on surgical abortions, but those abortions are becoming obsolete because of early abortifacient drugs and devices.”

So, I am left bewildered and anguished by these questions: Why not personhood? How can one be steadfast and at the same time oppose such sensible strategies?

As Alan Keyes warned, “The evil that we fight is but a shadow of the evil that we do.”

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. For three decades, she has advocated personhood declarations in law.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 03, 2008

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony releases its latest video.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 18, 2008

Gallery of Pro-Life Images and Graphics

I'm working on a gallery of pro-life images to make available online. These images are published in a private collection on Flickr. If you would like to access them, please email me and I will send you an invitation to join the gallery group. Email me at this address:
info AT votelifecanada DOT ca

It's a fairly simple process if you have any interest in these sorts of images.

I will be building the gallery on a regular basis, especially over the next week or two.

If others who join the group would like to add quality images to the gallery please let me know after joining the group. It would make a good resource for the pro-life movement.


Sunday, February 17, 2008

Vote Life, Canada! Project Suspended

Unfortunately, the work of Vote Life, Canada! has been suspended, effective immediately, due chiefly to a serious lack of funding.

Its future remains uncertain, although this blog and the official website will continue to be accessible. It is possible that there may be some future postings on this blog from time to time, depending on circumstances.

I have already thanked my small base of faithful and ardent sponsors for all their past expressions of support and I now say thank you to all the other individuals and groups who have offered words of encouragement along the way.

I close with this reminder to the faithful,

Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not requite man according to his work?
Proverbs 24:11-12.


Thursday, February 07, 2008

Pope Says Prayer Is The Engine Of The World

In yesterday evening's Ash Wednesday homily, the Pope reminded the world of its power source and noted that Lent was a journey of conversion calling out to all believers.


Pope on Ash Wednesday: prayer is "engine of the world"

ROME, February 7 (CNA).-Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday distributed ashes at the ancient Church of Santa Sabina on the Aventine hill in Rome. In his homily at the austere 1,500 year-old church, Vatican Radio reports that the Pope called prayer a "dialogue with God" and the "engine of the world." He also reminded Catholics that Lent is a journey of conversion that invites all believers to prayer, penitence, and fasting.

Pope Benedict said that Christ's prayer on the Cross, "shows us a person abandoned by all entrusts himself completely in God."

"Lent teaches us to experience God as the only anchor of Salvation," he said.

The Pope continued, saying that "true prayer is a dialogue with God, and without this our interior dialogue becomes a monologue, giving rise to thousands of self-justifications. Prayer, therefore, is a guarantee of being open to others. True prayer is the engine of the world, because it keeps us open to God. Without prayer, there is not hope, just illusion, which induces us to escape from reality".

The Pope called prayer, fasting, and almsgiving "places of learning and [the] practice of Christian hope." He said the three activities are inseparable, nourishing each other and bearing fruit when practiced together.

Addressing the topic of suffering, Pope Benedict said that Jesus suffered for truth and justice, revealing the Gospel of Suffering as the other side of the Gospel of Love.

The Pope said all men could take part in this "Gospel of Suffering," saying, "The greater the hope is that animates us, the greater also is the capacity to suffer for truth, love, and goodness,"

"We should offer up the small and great trials of our daily existence and insert them into the great compassion of Christ," Pope Benedict said.

Ashes have been distributed at the Church of Santa Sabina for more than 1,500 years.


Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Abortion Changes You: A New Outreach Soon To Be Launched

According to Julie at Happy Catholic, there’s a new outreach that will be launching nationally in a few months. Abortion Changes You looks very interesting. Go explore the site.


Sunday, February 03, 2008

Graphics for International Day of the Unborn Child 2008

For any pro-life individuals, bloggers or organizations who might be looking for a graphic in order to highlight celebrations of the upcoming International Day of the Unborn Child, please feel free to use the images created by Vote Life, Canada!

Higher resolution copies, as well as thumbnails are available on Flickr. Click here.


Friday, February 01, 2008

Spanish Bishops Release Statement about Voting in Elections

According to the CNA news report, there’s really nothing new here in what the Catholic Bishops stated but it was extremely important to restate it before the elections for the sake of the faithful. Hopefully, what the Spanish Bishops intend to “offer” in the way of considerations that encourage responsible voting will unequivocally reflect the truth of Catholic doctrine, particularly with respect to the sacredness of human life.

I trust that it will NOT be a confusing disaster similar to the recent USCCB document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”.


Spanish bishops: Vote "no" for policies against the faith

Madrid, Jan 31, 2008 / 06:59 pm (CNA).- The Executive Committee of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference has issued a statement in view of the upcoming general elections reminding Catholics that while they can belong or support different political parties, some policies are incompatible with Christian teachings and therefore should not be supported.

In view of the March 9 elections, the bishops said they were offering “to Catholics and all those who wish to listen to some considerations that encourage responsible voting.” “We speak as pastors of the Church who have the duty and the right to guide the moral discernment that is necessary when making decisions that will contribute to the full recognition of the fundamental rights of all and the promotion of the common good,” they stated.

The bishops expressed their respect for “those who see things differently,” but they called for “freedom and respect for freely proposing our way of seeing things, without anybody feeling threatened or without our comments being interpreted as an offense or a danger to the freedom of others.”

“While it is true that Catholics can support different parties and be active in them,” they added, “it is also true that not all policies are equally compatible with the faith and the demands of the Christian life, nor are they equally close and proportionate to the objectives and values that Christians should promote in public life.”

For this reason, “Catholics and citizens who wish to act responsibly, before casting their vote in favor of a particular proposal, should evaluate the different political options, keeping in mind the appreciation that each party, each policy and each leader gives to the moral dimension of life,” the bishops said.

“The State’s neutrality on religion or secular nature should not be confused with a moral disconnect and the extinction of objective moral obligations,” the bishops continued. “In saying this we are not pretending to submit government leaders to Catholic moral criteria. But we are asking them to abide by the common moral denominator founded upon reason and upon the historical experience of each nation.”

The bishops recalled that “it is not just to try to artificially construct a society without religious references, [making it] exclusively worldly, without worship of God or any aspiration for eternal life.”

Labels: , ,

God, Moral Judgment, and the Death Penalty

I have a question. Why did philosopher and Nobel Prize winner Albert Camus note, about seventy years ago in his observations about capital punishment, that the Catholic Church "has always accepted the necessity of the death penalty?”

It seems very odd indeed to me that there is such clamour today for the abolition of the death penalty on a worldwide scale yet a virtual apathy and indifference, if not outright advocacy, by the same parties regarding the death penalty inflicted upon the Unborn.

What complicates the issue even more are the recent campaigns against capital punishment by the highest levels of religious leadership in the world, including most prominently by the late Pope John Paul II. There’s been great controversy over this trend, especially considering that the Catholic Church presents the view of unchanging and infallible truth in its teaching pronouncements over the centuries.

Dr. Albert Mohler has a blog entry from this week which addresses some aspects of this controversy. I find it intriguing.


God, Moral Judgment, and the Death Penalty

In a fascinating new look at capital punishment, Professor Walter Berns of Georgetown University argues that support of the death penalty is tied to belief in God. He documents the link between secularization and declining support for capital punishment.

In "Religion and the Death Penalty," published in The Weekly Standard, Berns begins by observing that the best case for the death penalty "was made, paradoxically, by one of the most famous of its opponents, Albert Camus, the French novelist." Indeed, in opposing the death penalty Camus seems to have grasped what others had missed.

As Professor Berns explains:

The death penalty, he said, "can be legitimized only by a truth or a principle that is superior to man," or, as he then made clearer, it may rightly be imposed only by a religious society or community; specifically, one that believes in "eternal life." Only in such a place can it be said that the death sentence provides the guilty person with the opportunity (and reminds him of the reason) to make amends, thus to prepare himself for the final judgment which will be made in the world to come. For this reason, he said, the Catholic church "has always accepted the necessity of the death penalty." This may no longer be the case. And it may no longer be the case that death is, as Camus said it has always been, a religious penalty. But it can be said that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed by a religious people.


The reasons for this are not obvious. It may be that the religious know what evil is or, at least, that it is, and, unlike the irreligious, are not so ready to believe that evil can be explained, and thereby excused, by a history of child abuse or, say, a "post-traumatic stress disorder" or a "temporal lobe seizure." Or, again unlike the irreligious, and probably without having read so much as a word of his argument, they may be morally disposed (or better, predisposed) to agree with the philosopher Immanuel Kant--that greatest of the moralists--who said it was a "categorical imperative" that a convicted murderer "must die." Or perhaps the religious are simply quicker to anger and, while instructed to do otherwise, slower, even unwilling, to forgive. In a word, they are more likely to demand that justice be done. Whatever the reason, there is surely a connection between the death penalty and religious belief.

Berns then turns to consider the contrast between attitudes toward the death penalty in the United States and Europe. The contrasts are both obvious and instructive. Secular Europe is now on something of a global crusade against the death penalty. In the United States, high rates of church-going are matched to a high level of support for the death penalty.

As Berns explains, this has not escaped European attention. "European politicians and journalists recognize or acknowledge the connection, if only inadvertently, when they simultaneously despise us Americans for supporting the death penalty and ridicule us for going to church." Berns documents the depth of European secularity -- only about 4 percent of Germans attend church weekly, and in other major European nations the percentages are often even lower. In the end, Berns argues that Europe has lost a passion for punishment -- even respect for a structure of moral law.

He then offers a cogent observation:

A world so lacking in passion lacks the necessary components of punishment. Punishment has its origins in the demand for justice, and justice is demanded by angry, morally indignant men, men who are angry when someone else is robbed, raped, or murdered, men utterly unlike Camus's Meursault. This anger is an expression of their caring, and the just society needs citizens who care for each other, and for the community of which they are parts. One of the purposes of punishment, particularly capital punishment, is to recognize the legitimacy of that righteous anger and to satisfy and thereby to reward it. In this way, the death penalty, when duly or deliberately imposed, serves to strengthen the moral sentiments required by a self-governing community.

Professor Berns offers genuine insight and understanding in this argument. Indeed, I think his argument is even larger than the death penalty in its application. The absence of God -- and thus the absence of a transcendent standard of judgment and morality -- inevitably weakens all moral judgment. This certainly applies in the case of the death penalty, but it must also apply in other cases as well. When a transcendent standard of judgment and value disappears, the regime of therapy remains. Crime becomes anti-social behavior, wrong-doing becomes a syndrome, and moral judgment is endlessly hesitant and constantly renegotiated.

Secularism transforms a society. Professor Walter Berns understands that one of the apparent consequences of secularism is the difficulty of making hard moral judgments -- the kind of hard judgment needed for the most evil of crimes.


[image source]

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Do Canadians Want to Pay out EI Illness or Maternity Benefits When There is no Child?

A release today from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), a federally incorporated, non-profit and non-partisan, advocacy organization dedicated to lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.

January 31, 2008
Let's Talk Taxes: Federal

A not so private matter
by John Williamson

The assertion about “abortion being a private matter between a woman and her doctor” has been made a lot this week, mostly by proponents of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canada’s abortion law 20 years ago. It’s a clever jingle, but not entirely true. At least not as far as taxpayers are concerned.
...Full Article

h/t BigBlueWave

Labels: , ,

US March for Life and the Religion of Abortion

From Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International.....his latest Spirit & Life column.


The March for Life and the Religion of Abortion

It goes without saying that the annual March for Life is one of the most exciting and unifying events in the international movement to defend life. 100,000+ pro-lifers converged on our nation's capital this week, more than half of whom were under the age of 25, and declared that the slaughter of the innocents is never going to be accepted as a permanent institution in our nation. Abortion-promoters would be hard-pressed to show the world that they could sustain such a massive public movement in their favor for 35 straight years. I can only say, "Bravo!" to all the people - especially the kids - who made great sacrifices to join us in Washington this week.

It also goes without saying that the little tin gods in the media did their level best to ignore and obfuscate this colossal event. When the homosexual propaganda film star, Heath Ledger, died of a drug overdose two nights before the March, that provided the hedonistic media the perfect reason to wail and gnash their teeth for a prolonged period of time about their immoral agenda and derail coverage of the life event. I will pray for Mr. Ledger's immortal soul, but at the same time, his death is a study in contrasts with the March for Life. The Brokeback Mountain star was only 28 at the time of his demise. It was his massage therapist who discovered his body that morning. A thumbnail sketch of his adult life might look something like this: Hollywood glitter, money and status, cohabitating with a girlfriend, a child out of wedlock, an activist for an immoral lifestyle, drug overdose and then death at a very young age. It's a real tragedy, but the culture of hedonism and death was dramatically played against the culture of life and life in Washington DC that day.

Not to be outdone by the godless media, the Planned Parenthood in Schenectady, NY also staged its own drama of the absurd. They dedicated a new 18,000 square foot killing center that day and had three members of the abortion "clergy" come out and "bless" it! What I have always said about abortion as a demonic religion was on graphic display in NY as we were marching for life in DC. Two "ministers" came to do the blessing from a "reformed" church - their view of "reform" is obviously different than ours. The (male) reverend used the occasion to proudly announce a new doctrine to the three dozen devotees of sacred abortion: the right to privacy is endowed by God, he said. Now, we cannot even find the "right to privacy" in the US Constitution and yet this fellow makes a new religious right out of whole cloth. Don't ask the demonic religion for a good grounding in history or logic. The other abortion clergyman was a rabbi who blew the shofar as a way to show support for reproductive rights. Our friend Rabbi Yehuda Levin who blows the shofar most years at the March for Life will have a field day with that one.

The most absurd aspect of the blessing ceremony, however, was when the Rev. Larry Phillips of Schenectady's Emmanuel-Friedens Church led the congregation outside to lay hands on the brick and mortar and to declare that the killing center was "sacred ground." Ugh. The hierarchy (Planned Parenthood), the acolytes (clinic workers), the congregation (supporters) and the ministers were all at the abortion temple that day worshipping the god of abortion. And the demons were so pleased.

St. Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6 that our battle is not against flesh and blood. It is against the principalities and powers of this world of darkness. The darkness is spreading, but the Light of Christ shines forth in all those wonderful kids and their parents that showed the world that life will win in the end.

"The light shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it." (Jn 1:5)


[image source]


Pope: Scientific Progress Must be Truly Respectful of all Human Beings

This morning, from the Vatican:

Benedict XVI invited the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give particular attention to "the difficult and complex problems of bioethics". In this context, he indicated that the "Church's Magisterium certainly cannot and should not intervene on every scientific innovation. Rather, it has the task of reiterating the great values at stake, and providing the faithful, and all men and women of good will, with ethical-moral principals and guidelines for these new and important questions.

"The two fundamental criteria for moral discernment in this field", he added, "are: unconditional respect for the human being as a person, from conception to natural death; and respect for the origin of the transmission of human life through the acts of the spouses".

The Pope highlighted "new problems" associated with such questions as "the freezing of human embryos, embryonal reduction, pre-implantation diagnosis, stem cell research and attempts at human cloning". All these, he said, "clearly show how, with artificial insemination outside the body, the barrier protecting human dignity has been broken. When human beings in the weakest and most defenceless stage of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure 'biological matter', how can it be denied that they are no longer being treated as 'someone' but as 'something', thus placing the very concept of human dignity in doubt".

The Holy Father highlighted how "the Church appreciates and encourages progress in the biomedical sciences, which opens up previously unimagined therapeutic possibilities". At the same time, he pointed out that "she feels the need to enlighten everyone's consciences so that scientific progress may be truly respectful of all human beings, who must be recognised as having individual dignity because they have been created in the image of God". In this context, he concluded by ensuring participants in the plenary assembly that study of such themes "will certainly contribute to promoting the formation of consciences of many of our brothers and sisters".


Labels: , ,

23 Yr. Old Lauren Richardson Being Starved to Death in Delaware

From the DefendLife blog:
Lauren Richardson, a 23-year old non-dying citizen of Delaware, is in grave danger of being dehydrated and starved to death by order of the state, against the wishes of her father.
Read the rest of the sad and shocking entry here.

This is so reminiscent of the Terri Schiavo tragedy. If there's anything you can do to help Lauren and her family (besides prayer), please do so asap.

Labels: ,

A Brief Look into Politically Correct Injustice

My latest community editorial for The Telegram appears in today’s edition of the paper.


Politically Correct Injustice

We all believe in justice, right? Everyone treated fairly and nobody left out, right?

"Justice" sounds simple but we all know it's not that simple. It starts with a caring heart and a watchful eye, to say the least. The rest of the justice formula demands serious thought, a lot of hard work and a process.

I propose today we focus on a little careful thought about what the word justice means. Dictionary aside, I'd say it means treating people according to the truth of who they are and what they've done.

Since I've included the "truth" word I'm obliged to include the "God" word because what is considered truth must always have a reference point outside our own personal—and human—subjective opinion. Otherwise we might fail at justice because of personal bias or human error. After all, who knows more about ketchup than Heinz and who knows more about man and his challenges than the Creator of man?

Not coincidentally, that's the way Western civilization has viewed the relationship of truth and justice for centuries. This approach has served to keep our society strong and safe. In fact, many famous jurists have acknowledged that the Ten Commandments comprise the foundation of common law and the free world's justice system.

Without a foremost respect for God's version of the truth we would not have been able to bring to justice those who massacred Jews in the name of 'superiority' and 'purity.' Their politically correct injustice served political ends but did not line up with the truth and therefore led to the worst kinds of crimes in society.

Similarly, the fight to lead the Blacks out of slavery was a justice movement founded on God's version of the truth about man. Slavery and racism in America were also examples of politically correct injustice where sadly even certain Christians tried to use the bible to justify their outrageous conduct.

Our society also has its own versions of politically correct injustice—always aimed at the other guy though and not ourselves. Consider the crisis in our healthcare system—including the spinoff "truth" crisis at Eastern Health—and also the scandal of pauper's wages for home/elder care workers. Both are fundamentally justice issues and not simply financial predicaments. Why? Because we have agreed as a community that our own personal convenience and prosperity takes precedence over providing to the most vulnerable and needy of our fellow human beings the same treatment we, and certainly God, would advocate for ourselves.

Similarly with poverty. But not simply the extremely narrow version espoused recently in St. John's by religious leaders aiming to abolish such injustice. Yours truly showed up with an opinion that since a child's right to life precedes the right to food and clothing these leaders ought to also be on record for abolishing the politically correct injustice of abortion. Within minutes, and before saying a word, I was immediately identified through a phony handshake, arrested and confined to a paddy wagon for the duration of the news conference. How's that for political correctness? No matter—a small price to pay for exposing the unpleasant truth.

And there's the rub. A society that closes its eyes to the truth will surely be blind to its politically correct injustices. Justice simply cannot be separated from the truth. It's no coincidence that the courtroom demands we "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…so help me God."

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

What Part of Pro-Life Don’t You Understand?

Continuing with some recent postings and the very urgent business of maintaining the integrity of the concept “pro-life,” I bring to the reader’s attention a recent column by Mark Crutcher. For those readers unfamiliar with Mark, here’s an introductory paragraph from his biography.

For many years, Mark Crutcher has been an outspoken and uncompromised opponent of abortion. In 1986, he created the Life Activist Seminar and trained more than 15,000 pro-life activists all across the United States and Canada. Then, in 1992, he founded Life Dynamics which has since become widely recognized as one of the most innovative and professional pro-life organizations in America.

If anyone knows what the word “pro-life” stands for, I believe Mark Crutcher does. He’s an aggressive, principled fighter for the Unborn.


Pro-Life: What Does it Mean?

Today, there seems to be a lot of debate about what it means when someone says they are pro-life. This is especially true for politicians. For clarity’s sake, let’s define the term. The pro-life position is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.

Given that, some abortion positions are pretty cut and dried. For example, someone who supports a universal human life amendment to the constitution is pro-life, while someone who supports the Roe vs. Wade decision is not.

Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality. As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.

In reality, this is the most insidious and despicable of all positions on abortion. After all, there is no reason to oppose abortion other than the belief that it takes the life of a living human being. So what the “personally opposed” crowd is saying is, "I agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a baby, but if other people want to do it I support their legal right to do so and it’s not my place to interfere." That is not a pro-life position. It’s like someone in 1860 saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery and I would never own one, but if someone else wants to own a few that’s their business.”

Another stance often mischaracterized as pro-life is the “pro-life with exceptions” position. You’ll hear people say things like, “I am pro-life, but I think there should be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest” or “I am pro-life, but abortion should be legal when the baby is handicapped.”

It is a complete abandonment of the pro-life principle to say it should be permissible to kill selected categories of children. When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, the question is whether they would support killing a five-year-old in those same circumstances. If not, then it is clear that they don’t see born and unborn children as morally equal. In other words, they do not subscribe to the most fundamental tenet of the pro-life position.

In the grimy world of politics, a new position is emerging to test the boundaries of what it means to be pro-life. We are now hearing presidential candidates say that they are pro-life but that each individual state should be allowed to set its own policies regarding abortion. Of course, the problem with that thinking is that the right to life is specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of his or her life without due process of law. Even Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe vs. Wade, said that if the personhood of the unborn was ever established the right to abortion evaporated.

When a politician claims to be pro-life, he or she is asserting that the born and the unborn are both persons. So the question becomes, how can they logically claim that only the born have a constitutional right to life? And the answer is, they can’t.

To understand how preposterous this is, imagine that a state legislature passed a law allowing parents of newborn children to take a few days to decide whether they are really prepared to start a family. Under this new statute, if they decided they were not ready for this responsibility, they would be legally allowed to have a physician slit their child’s throat. In that situation, how many of these “pro-life” politicians who are now saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, would say that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of these born children? Of course, the universal consensus would be that they not only have that right, they have the duty to do so.

The point is, when someone claims to be pro-life but says that abortion is a state matter, that is an unmistakable indicator that either (a) they do not truly believe that the born and unborn are both persons or (b) they are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.

It may also be indicative of something the pro-life movement has done. For 35 years we have hammered away at legalized abortion when, technically speaking, abortion is not the root problem. In reality, it is only a symptom. The disease is the absence of legal protection for the unborn.

After all, if a woman who is not pregnant wanted to submit to abortion, we might find it bizarre and we would probably question her sanity, but in the final analysis it would probably not concern us any more than it would if she were getting a tattoo or body piercing.

So the problem is not that women have abortions, but that children die. And that only occurs because our nation took away their right to life. So maybe we need to talk a little less about stopping abortion and a little more about returning legal protection to the unborn. Perhaps then, all these people claiming to be pro-life would know what being pro-life actually means.


Labels: , , ,