Monday, April 30, 2007

"Just Kill Them" Is Not A Solution

Okay, lets return to the primary question here. What are the unborn? If they are innocent human beings then this article describes a grisly reality being ushered in from the most admirable and understandable sentiments. If they are innocent human beings then Matthew and Helen are actually killing a number of their children as a means of preventing them from enduring a possible future trauma, however likely that trauma is to occur. If they are innocent human beings the British government is sanctioning the destruction of human life to prevent the possible future suffering of that life.
Jay at LTI blog draws disturbing but reasonable conclusions from a Times Online article about two British couples that are screening their embryonic children for genetic markers. The markers indicate a dramatically increased chance for an aggressive form of adult onset breast cancer.

The posting highlights the need for ethics and objective thinking, as well as deep courage and character, in these kinds of apparent dilemmas.


Priests, Women, Abortions And Healing

"Priests can open the road to healing for women who have had abortions" says Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life.
We first of all need to let people know that forgiveness and healing are available after abortion. Many regard abortion as an "unforgivable sin." Our preaching and teaching need to echo and re-echo the message that the doors of the Church are open to anyone who has been involved in abortion, whether once or many times, and that to oppose abortion does not mean to oppose those who have them.

Rather, it means to embrace them in love and bring them new hope.
Some priests feel that the presence of women in the congregation who have had abortions is a reason to be silent about it. Just the opposite is true, however, because as we have seen, the first step to healing is to break out of denial. Silence motivated by the best of intentions still does not interpret itself, and the woman suffering from abortion may think we are silent because we do not know her pain, do not care, or have no hope to offer. In truth, however, we speak because we do know, do care, and do offer hope.
FYI, Priests for Life has a very comprehensive and useful pro-life website. It is updated daily and you can quickly view the updates here.

Just last week Father Pavone applauded the remarks made Monday by Vatican Archbishop Angelo Amato and his organization challenged every priest and pastor in America to repeat from the pulpit the Archbishop's language regarding abortion.

Canada also has its own Priests For Life organization, found online here.


Friday, April 27, 2007

Is Abortion a Type of Terrorism?

According to Archbishop Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Vatican City,
Abortion and euthanasia are examples of "terrorism with a human face," and, together with suicide bombers, are the scourge of contemporary society.
The Archbishop makes some excellent points. In fact, in the Vote Life, Canada! booklet "How to Vote Life," a similar description is put forward to help voters understand the true implications of voting for candidates who have no problem with the status quo on abortion; i.e. the continued killing of innocent unborn children in the womb. Here's what we point out:
Suppose a candidate came forward and said, “I support terrorism.” Would you say, “I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” Of course not. Rather, you would immediately consider that candidate as disqualified from public office. His position, allowing the killing of the public, is radically inconsistent with public service.

So it is with abortion. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism. Any candidate who says abortion should be kept legal disqualifies him/herself from public service. We need look no further; we need pay no attention to what that candidate says on other issues. Support for abortion is enough for us to decide not to vote for such a person.

But returning to the Archbishop's comments, he noted:
Besides the abominable terrorism of suicide bombers, which is ever-present in the media, there is the so-called terrorism with a human face, which is also a daily occurrence and just as repugnant, which continues to be propagated by the media, manipulating traditional language with expressions that hide the tragic reality of the facts.
How much of this we see happening every day! The language of slogans and illusions is what fuels the pro-abortion movement.
As an example, the 68-year-old prelate mentioned that abortion is referred to as "the voluntary interruption of pregnancy" instead of "the killing of a defenseless human being." Euthanasia is defined merely as "death with dignity," he observed.

Archbishop Amato also mentioned the decisions of national legislatures that promote "laws contrary to the human being."

Evil today "is not only the action of single individuals or identifiable groups, but comes from dark centers, the laboratories of false opinions, from anonymous powers that hammer away at our minds with false messages, judging behavior in tune with the Gospels as ridiculous and out of date," he lamented.

"We cannot close the libraries of evil nor can we destroy its collection of videos that are reproduced like lethal viruses," noted Archbishop Amato. He explained that Christians can build themselves up "through the formation of a right conscience that searches for and loves the true and the good and avoids evil."

And there you have the solution. If Christians will learn to love the truth, form their consciences rightly and biblically, and live out their Christian duties in God honouring ways, Canadian society would be sufficiently salted such that abortion would be unthinkable....as it had been for more than 1900 years in Christian societies.


No Abortions, No Exceptions: A Must Read!

World Net Daily reported one week ago on pro-life efforts unfolding in Georgia. The entire report is astonishing, yet to the same degree encouraging.

Sometimes a summary does injustice to an unusual and invaluable article. Therefore I present it in its entirety. The article may be found on the World Net Daily website at this address.


'No abortions, no exceptions,' in sight - Georgia group aims for constitutional amendment in 2008

Posted: April 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Georgia group aims for constitutional amendment in 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court's approval of a ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure drew praise from many Americans this week, including Georgia Right to Life spokesman Dan Becker. But his Bible-based goal is a little larger: no abortions, no exceptions. Not even for rape and incest.

The precedent-setting plan already is on track to be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment as early as next year, and abortion opponents say it could set the stage for the nationwide recognition of the unborn as legal "persons" deserving of constitutional protection – a wave launched by this week's court opinion, the first ban on an abortion procedure since it was legalized.

The Georgia organization has taken a state where about 2 percent of the lawmakers held to the strict limits on abortion only seven years ago to one where such a constitutional plan is "within striking distance," Becker told WND.

The whole sanctity of life cause is based on Genesis 1:26-28, where it talks about man is created in the image of God, and has worth at all levels," Becker said. "Hence, we are working at a state level for a paramount human life amendment to our Constitution."

The plan was written by the Thomas More Law Center, which advocates for pro-life causes:

"The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person. With respect to the fundamental and inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization."

"It is time that the citizens of Georgia be able to speak decisively to this most fundamental right," said Caryl Swift, president of the organization. "When is a person a 'person' under the laws of our State and therefore entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Let's let Georgians decide …"

Becker, the Georgia Right to Life vice president, said the proposal would allow pro-life advocates to reach two objectives. "It establishes and affirms in principle that Georgia is a 'pro-life' state that seeks to protect all human life from fertilization as a matter of constitutional law, and it provides a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade."

Justice Harry Blackmun, in the 1973 opinion in which the Supreme Court announced the constitutional right to abortion, noted that, "[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

Becker told WND that's the key, and since pro-life legislation in the state Senate already has been collecting about 39 votes, two more than would be needed to approve such a constitutional provision, and in the state House, the pro-life votes number about 116, just four shy of the needed number, the issue is within "striking distance."

How did Georgia move from a state run by Democrats since Reconstruction to having a legislature filled with pro-life supporters and a governor's office eager to sign legislation such as a strict parental notification law for abortions on minors, an unborn victims of violence act to enhance penalties when a pregnant woman is hurt and her unborn child also sustains injury, and a "Choose Life" license plate, all in just the last few years?

This year's work is resulting in a requirement that mothers be given the option of looking at an ultrasound of their unborn child whenever that test is done. And don't forget the non-destructive stem cell research requirement.

At the same time, abortions in the state have fallen 19 percent since 1990, while the population as increased 42 percent. The governor has taken a positively pro-life position, as has the lieutenant governor, a possible contender for the state's top job in a coming election.

The answer is the Bible, Becker said.

"We have to take the position that aligning ourselves with God's Word produces the most positive results," he said.

He said pro-life advocates in the state of Michigan got the idea started, and Georgia has taken it on as its own. Now other states, including Colorado, are pursuing the strategy that abortion is abortion and the Bible doesn't allow it.

"It's because of the religious orientation of the majority of our organization," Becker said. "We believe … that faith dictates that the Bible be the ultimate authority. We are attempting to align ourselves with God's position on the sanctity of life issue."

In a column published on WND, Colorado Right to Life President Brian Rohrbough, agreed.

"We know the commandment to end abortion comes from God, not from man. It's been almost 40 years since abortion was legalized. For most of those years we've heard this same strategy of 'doing some evil that good might come from it.' Well it hasn't. This failed strategy has never once protected or given personhood status to a single child," he writes.

"We must honor God to end this slaughter," he said.

Specifically, Becker said when Georgia's organization made a change – eliminating the approval of exceptions for rape and incest – seven years ago, the state was typically pro-abortion. Only 2 percent of the state House could be considered reliable pro-life votes, he noted.

But he said something had to be done. While terrorists have killed about 3,000 people since 1990, abortions have killed 4,000 since yesterday, he said, and the state's abortion death toll for 2004 was 32,708, equal to the entire student population of the University of Georgia.

So the organization changed its requirements, and began endorsing only political candidates who condemn abortion, including instances of rape and incest, a move mainstream pro-life organizations said would be fatal to their cause.

However, the results didn't bear out negative forecasts:

In 2,000, three quarters of all targeted House candidates endorsed under those restrictions won, with an average margin of victory of 29 percent. The election's result was a gain of three pro-life state senators and four in the state House.

In 2001, the group raised $400,000 for a television campaign reaching out to unwed mothers-to-be and watched as calls to crisis pregnancy centers skyrocketed. Also, every member of the executive office of the state Republican Party now was occupied by candidates who believe abortions should not be allowed for rape and incest.

In 2002, more advertising to unwed mothers, and more calls. Abortions declined further. Sonny Perdue advocated against abortions, including for rape and incest, and became the first pro-life governor in Georgia since 1868. Fox News reported 5.85 percent of all voters chose Perdue solely because he's pro-life, handing him a victory margin of 5.2 percent. Gain of three Senate seats, 14 in the House.

In 2003, a media campaign ran for nine months, and the number of local chapters rose from 12 to 43.

In 2004, abortions dropped 5.3 percent in 12 months after a full year of a media campaign. Now pro-life Republicans control the governor's office, state Senate and state House.

In 2005, the Woman's Right to Know law passed after 15 years of battling. Removed loophole in Parental Notification law. Abortions dropped another 3 percent.

And just last year, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed, as was the Choose Life license plate. The state General Assembly was the only state law-making body to lose no pro-life seats in the election; in fact, the number was raised. Perdue was re-elected, pro-life advocate Casey Cagle was elected lieutenant governor. A media campaign brought in more calls to Georgia pregnancy centers (21,069) than in any other state.

"If we're consistent with God's position in His Word, we expect Him to fight our battles for us," Becker said. "We've seen success after success, and we can't claim that's due to outstanding organization or increased funding, even though all of that's true.

"We give God the glory, He is fighting the battles on our behalf," Becker said.

He said this week's Supreme Court opinion is important because it begins society on the path to recognize the unborn as people, and others agreed.

"This is an important step toward ensuring that all innocent human life is protected," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute in California. "While we should certainly relish this victory, we must also continue the fight. There is still a lot to be done."

Becker said such recognition will naturally follow if Christians elect candidates who are pro-life from conviction, not just political expediency. And a side effect is that such candidates are "right on a whole host of issues," such as parental rights, school requirements and end-of-life decisions and not just on abortion.

When the harder stance was implemented, the mainstream press in Atlanta labeled pro-life supporters as "extremists," he said.

"All we could do was say we know where the Word of God stands on this," he told WND.

He said the organization's short-term goals are to "place limits on evil without participating in it." A longer-term goal is the recognition of the Bible's values regarding sanctity of life.

"We believe that the ultimate goal for a pro-life state organization must be a Paramount Human Life Amendment," the organization's goals state. "Georgia seeks a constitutional amendment that not only establishes the 'personhood' of the fetus, but more importantly speaks to all areas of the sanctity of life cause."

"We're shooting for 2008," Becker said.

Opponents, too, are recognizing the power behind the movement.

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Leola Reis told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution she was unhappy with the influence of the pro-life movement on this year's approval of the ultrasound requirement.

"Is Georgia Right to Life the new shadow government under the Gold Dome?" she asked.

"They're the single force behind this. They're insisting this highly regulatory bill be passed."

Where Reis saw obstacles, others saw open doors.

"Roe is no longer the dictator over the Supreme Court. This is a landmark ruling that slams the brakes on infanticide and the devaluing of human life. Partial Birth Abortion is a perverse practice that dresses up infanticide with a technicality," said Rev. James Tonkowich, with the Institute on Religion and Democracy.


Thursday, April 26, 2007

Corus Entertainment Bullies Pro-Life Alliance For Life

Read this report from yesterday's edition of LifeSiteNews.com entitled "Ontario Pro-Life Group Harassed by TV Ad Bureau Over Previously Approved Ad."

In a follow up email, fetal rights advocate Suzanne Fortin makes a plea:


This is an ideologically motivated attempt to censor Alliance for Life. Fetal surgeries are performed in Ontario, it says so here at the University of Toronto website:

http://www.obgyn.utoronto.ca/divisions/mfm.htm

I could not find an email for Corus Entertainment, but we can write CHEX tv and tell them to pass on the information to Corus. We can also email the Television Bureau of Canada.

Funny, you can say half-truths about a host of products, and no one bats an eye, but challenge established ideology...

Please email these addresses and tell them to broadcast the "Nurse" ad. Tell them to STOP CENSORING pro-lifers.

ChexTV General Manager Ron Johnston:

mailto:mrjohnston@chextv.com

Television Bureau tvb@tvb.ca

Don't forget to reference the Lifesite article:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07042507.html

Please do this. I am certain that if we all write in and tell them how this has lowered our opinion of Corus Entertainment, I am sure they will back down. But we need to ALL do it. We've won before with the pro-life ads in the Niagara area radio station-- I am certain we can do it again.

God Bless,
Suzanne

Culture Of Death Returns To Mexico

Here is a Catholic blogger's report on this week's legalization of abortion in Mexico City.

Pro-life leader Mark Crutcher offered some insightful commentary just two weeks ago on the drive to legalize abortion in Mexico. Entitled "Mexico: Big Abortion's safety net," Mark makes his case:
The American abortion lobby is manipulating the Mexican political process to turn this once proud nation into the abortion capital of the Western Hemisphere. And once that happens, they will pour millions into the pockets of Mexican politicians to see that it never changes. The inevitable result will be that the United States will be able to sit back and show the world that we are too good to tolerate the evil of abortion, while a steady stream of American women pour into Mexico's death camps.
Positively frightful.

Human Life International calls the Mexico City decision catastrophic.

LifeSiteNews yesterday carried an alarming story on the extremely bold abortion-pushing stance of the EI and this is simply one more report among so many that have been surfacing about the UN drive to make abortion a universal "reproductive right."


Placing The Shame Of Women Above The Lives Of Children

The more things a man is ashamed of, the more respectable he is.
George Bernard Shaw

James Love on Religion and Culture states it very well in yesterday's blog entry.
Canadians who support abortion place the shame of women above the lives of children and the natural human desire of people to parent. By this choice they become enemies of life and humanity itself. Nice as many of these people are (and I was one of them) they are deep in the muck of evil. Yes, evil.
Apparently James and his wife signed up to an adoption agency in Vancouver at one point in the past and discovered
"that some social workers consider practicing Christians unfit for parenting."
His posting centers on that experience and the fact that
It is OK for Christians to engage in political power to promote our view of the good life.
He says,
We have a right to exercise our voice and power in order to promote the common good as we see it.
In Canada we do this on the most elementary, but most powerful, level through voting. Let us learn to do it wisely, for God's glory.


Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Is Our Religion In Canada Pure And Undefiled?

Pure and undefiled religion is this, to visit widows and orphans and keep yourself unstained from the world... James 1:27
James makes it clear (among other things) that God has a unique concern for orphans. Since God compels believers to care for children whose parents have been killed, wouldn't He also compel us to care for children whose parents want to kill them? By all reasonable examination, that's a more dangerous and urgent condition to be in.

James says to visit the widows. Visit the orphans. Get up. Get out. Do something in the service of love to alleviate suffering in the lives of those around you. Isn't James warning us not to be so 'spiritual' in our Christian life that we write off the daily slaughter of thousands of innocent human beings as a political issue (beyond our jurisdiction)?

Yet he's also warning against becoming so 'worldly' in intervening for them that we lose sight of the bigger picture (reconciling people to Christ through holiness and love). This balance is the essence of pure and undefiled religion.

[condensed from A Biblical Mandate to do Something]



Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Vote Life, Canada! April Newsletter Now Online

The first Vote Life, Canada! newsletter has reached the airwaves!

It's been only a month since we launched but much has been accomplished, so read our newsletter and find out what Vote Life, Canada! has been doing on behalf of Canada's unborn!


Too Costly Or Too Insignificant To Care For Unborn?

The Parable of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37

A pro-life version of the Good Samaritan was recently posted to this blog. This is a passage that has massive implications concerning Christian responsibility and abortion.

The lawyer, wanting to justify himself, asks Jesus who his neighbor is. Christ's answer not only tells us who our neighbor is but also gives us a daunting pattern for loving him, a pattern which speaks volumes to our relationship with unborn children.

The priest and Levite were condemned, not for wrong thinking, but for wrong action. To love their neighbor at that moment required rescuing and caring for him, and that is something they deemed too costly or too insignificant.

Doesn't Jesus call His followers not to the mere theoretical opposition of injustice, but rather to the real and practical (and often painful) ministry of meeting physical needs in a dying world?

And yet the unborn in Canada hardly and rarely merit mention, let alone action, by Christians.

Shouldn't Christians, especially leaders, be asking themselves why this is so, before Jesus asks the question of them?


Monday, April 23, 2007

A Plan To Save The Unborn In Canada

“Bad politicians are elected by good people who don’t vote.”

It is clear to biblically minded Christians that Canada has departed from moral and righteous standards and has deprived itself of much of God’s protection and blessing. This ought to be a cause for the greatest concern for us, for our children, and for generations of Canadians to follow.

By everyday observation, we see a vast array of immoral agents which have overtaken Canada, such as abortion, sexual perversion, pornography, drugs, divorce, and suicide to name a few. Some Christians ask what they can do to deal with such evils and to get Canada back on course.

It is first crucial to put the evils mentioned in proper perspective. If abortion is in fact taking hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives in Canada—if in fact such activity is the discriminate killing of an distinct and separate group of society’s most innocent and vulnerable members—would there be any question as to which evil first needs addressing in Canada? If you have attended a Vote Life, Canada! seminar or presentation you will know that a powerful case is made for just such a scenario.

Given such a scenario, would there be any doubt as to why Canada continues to slide further and further into a moral abyss? Would there be any question for the Christian as to what God first required of him/her? Of course not. Saving innocent human lives, especially young children, would take on emergency status, wouldn’t it?

Interestingly, the solution to our societal ills is much closer at hand and much clearer than many Christians realize. A determined effort to eliminate the greatest injustice and evil in present day Canada, namely the killing of unborn children, will at once yield a solution to many of our other distresses, which, not by coincidence, have ravaged Canada incessantly and increasingly since the door to legal abortion was swung open.

Furthermore, no Christian should doubt the significant resurgence of God’s blessings upon Canada should His people repent of their complicity and indifference in the matter of abortion and take the necessary steps to protect unborn children from such atrocity.

Beyond repentance, what are these necessary steps?

Consistency in Christian living through the wise exercise of the Christian’s vote.

image source

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Mommy-Come-Lately Wishes Daughter Happy Birthday

Barbara Curtis, of MommyLife blog, celebrates the birthday of her last natural-birthed daughter, Maddy.

That was fourteen years ago, when Barbara was 45 years old.

It's a touching post, partly because Barbara, mother of twelve, provides enough history and context for the celebration in order for the reader to join in the celebration.

It's a story of love, as all birthday celebrations are, but much more than that it is truly a story of LIFE!

May your mother and father be glad;
May she who gave you birth rejoice! (Proverbs 23:25)


Saturday, April 21, 2007

Catholics Pleading With Bishops Over Abortion

The ongoing struggle within Catholic circles continues unabated over discipline of pro-abortion Catholic politicians by their Bishops. Mostly we hear reports from the US.

I have blogged previously about the problem.

Here's a current report.
In January, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Archbishop Wuerl’s revealing remarks at an event in Washington in which he expressed annoyance with lay Catholics who urge him to confront pro–abortion Catholic politicians: “His temptation, he said, was to reply with, ‘What are YOU doing about it? How is your voice heard?’” reported the Pittsburgh newspaper.

His rejoinder makes no sense. Members of the laity, after all, have been “doing” a great deal to counteract pro–abortion Catholic politicians. All they are asking is that the bishops back them up and exercise the authority they alone possess to protect the sacraments and dispel scandal. The faithful are petitioning him not out of disdain for his office, but out of recognition of its supreme importance in saving souls.


....

In the interview with KCBS, Archbishop Niederauer said that his role is not to play “gatekeeper” of the Eucharist. Yes, it is. As Jesus Christ told his first bishops, shepherds are gatekeepers, and when they don’t guard the gate, the flock get eaten.
What's happening in Canada in this regard?

Much the same, although the debate is certainly not as fierce in Canada or as prominent, but does surface from time to time.

It is however just as crucial an issue for saving unborns from being legally killed in the womb. After all, Catholics in Canada, as well as those in the US are in the same Church, subject to the same teachings, and under the one Pope.


Please Pray For This Young Woman

Those who are pro-child killing will tell you that this rarely, if ever, happens. They'll maintain that PAS (post abortion syndrome) is simply a pro-life invention and tactic to scare women from killing their unborns.

Stories like the one below happen constantly and it would be impossible to blog about them all the time. But to share one occasionally is important. This one surfaced yesterday on a Catholic forum. Please pray for this angry, hurting and betrayed woman.

Back when I was 20 yrs old I had an abortion. At that time I was not Catholic (as my mom didn't want to "inflict" her religion on me) and the baby's dad wanted me to have an abortion. "There will be more babies" he said. I knew in my heart it was wrong, but I was so scared. We just got together after I had been with my previous boyfriend for 4 years.

Fast forward. Broke up with my aborted baby's dad. We stayed together for 3 years and even got engaged. I just couldn't forgive him. He also cheated on me 2 years into the relationship. He was an atheist. Met and married my husband at 25. Learned more about the Catholic Faith and was baptised before our marriage. Tried for years to have a child and had to end up using fertility medication. I now think about the abortion and my lost baby constantly. I found myself crying more and more.

I wish I had had the strength to keep the baby. I am horrified at what I did. I am MAD at the baby's dad, I am MAD at my stupid mother who never raised me to value life (she told me she aborted my youngest brother/sister because there was a chance that the baby was abnormal). She was totally into that GARBAGE feminism crap.

I am MAD at the abortion doctor who seemed so NICE and happy at having another patient to tear their child away from them. I am MAD that the abortion didn't initially work and I had to go back for ultrasounds and blood tests to make sure "they got the baby". I am horrified this genocide is occurring every day and the PRO LIFE movement is so misrepresented. I feel such disgust at myself.

Please help me to start healing. I can't talk with anyone I know (my husband does know about my abortion). I feel so angry right now.

I want to go back and change my decision. I want to stop what I have done. How can I ever undo killing my own baby? I feel such sadness and despair and this is 13 years later. Please help me.

13 years later.

It does take time for the horrible reality of child killing to work its poison throughout a woman's soul. And since 1969 Canada has facilitated 3 million of these violent deaths, with their attendant grief and distress. Multiply that by the number of close family and friends touched by the pain of the mother and you get a glimpse of how abortion is wrecking Canada...our present and our future.

How could we have tolerated so much evil for so long?


Friday, April 20, 2007

Stem Cells And The Abortion Distortion Factor

Mark Crutcher, no-nonsense radical pro-lifer of Life Dynamics in Texas, offers an excellent take on the distortions and deceptions of embryonic stem cell research.

Mark suggests a hypothetical scenario and makes his point from there:
To appreciate that science unfettered by morality is the most evil and dangerous force on earth, imagine that a team of researchers has developed a drug that would cure cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

This miracle drug is produced from a chemical found in healthy people between 15 and 55 years old and the amount needed to treat the entire country would require only about 500 donors per year. Additionally, clinical trials prove that the drug is 100% effective and perfectly safe.
His scenario is an effective one and leads to this conclusion:
Today, some people are trying to rationalize using aborted embryos in medical experiments by suggesting that it is a way to “make something good come from abortion.” They argue that these children are either already dead or that they are going to be discarded whether we exploit them or not. The moment we buy into that philosophy, we become absolutely no different than the Nazi thugs who stole the gold fillings from the teeth of Jews they killed in their concentration camps.

The point is, it is morally repugnant that we slaughter unborn children in the first place, and when we rob their graves to make our lives better we disgrace ourselves even further. So, if the question is whether we should “discard” these dead babies instead of using them in medical experiments designed to benefit us, the answer is an unqualified yes. We have no right to profit from our own evil.
But beyond the evil principle of seeking to profit from our own evil is Mark's final piercing assessment:
Finally, let me make one thing perfectly clear. This myopic focus on embryonic stem cells is about finding a way to justify abortion. If that is not true, then you explain to me why all the hype is about embryonic stem cells when all the medical breakthroughs have come from adult stem cells.


Alternatives To Abortion

I offer two articles touching on the subject of alternatives to abortion, both of which offer lighter reading but carry a very strong message.

The first is a commentary entitled "An amazing alternative to abortion" by Jeff O’Bryant, an amateur historian.

The second is a touching rescue story entitled "If a Baby's Heart is Beating, but There is No One There to Hear it, is the Baby Still Alive?" which appeared on Jill Stanek's blog.

Enjoy both!


Pluralism, Tolerance And Abortion

From STR blog
The principles of pluralism and tolerance as practiced today make moral judgments impossible. Yet moral judgment is fundamental to social reform - judging some practices wrong and other good. Here's a clever anecdote that illustrates the point well.

The British general Charles James Napier assigned to British-run India was informed that he just didn't understand Indian customs. He couldn't ban the practice of wife-burning, he was told, because it was an ancient and valued tradition in India. He said he understood and appreciated that. It was just that "my country also has a custom." he explained. "We hang people who burn women." His custom won out.

Some things are obviously evil, yet modern tolerance doesn't permit us to make judgments. The only way social ills and evils can be reformed, is to make a moral judgment that it's wrong and must be changed.

Abortion is wrong and must be changed. Like wife burning, there is no middle ground because it ALWAYS results in the death of another human being.

Feminists would immediately scream: "So now you're saying we should hang women who have abortions!"

That would be a typical statement to hear from a pro-abort in order to distract from the point. So to clarify for those who don't always hear the obvious, what I am simply saying is that abortion, like wife burning, needs to be made ILLEGAL.


Thursday, April 19, 2007

Canada's Charter, The Supreme Court , Caitlan Moran And More

This posting is a follow up to some previous ones and is for the interest and information of those who might be interested in more detail on these subjects.

It should go without saying that each item has a bearing, directly or indirectly, on the killing of Unborns in various places throughout the world, Canada being my chief concern.

More on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Nearly a week ago, I blogged that the Charter, whose birthday was celebrated two days ago on the 17th, robbed Unborns of their birthdays. To understand some of the connections of the Charter to socialist and feminist thinking [which was touched upon before] take a look at this posting on Rabble.ca entitled "What is missing from our Charter."

Like The Star, the author celebrates the Charter, but his premise, I believe, is encapsulated in this paragraph,
The Charter protects political and civil rights, and makes French an official language of Canada, but falls short in protecting basic economic and social rights, as can be seen when it is set next to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1946.
But in the thinking of any Christian, the author's concession that power lies with the people, not the state and does not originate with God, should set off alarms. Indeed, he seems to be saying that our Charter grew out of such ungodly thinking.
The French revolutionary tradition recognized that democratic rights had to lie with the people, and be derived from human rights, not from God or any sovereign authority, elected or not.
Blogger Stand Your Ground, who cares about the rights of ALL Canadians, including Unborns, offers a sharp critique of the Charter and points to the posting of a fellow blogger at The Politic.com whose commentary is equally scathing.

Stand Your Ground notes the obvious,
Finally, it was the same charter that stripped the unborn Canadians of their right to life. Some 250,000 Canadians live with none of their rights protected. About 300 of them are slaughtered every day - because our Charter-scared lawmakers, schools and healthcare workers aren't allowed to tell women that their unborn child is a person. Because the Charter doesn't consider the unborn as such.

Ban on Partial Birth Abortion Upheld by US Supreme Court

My postings yesterday on the Court's decision here and here, were designed for basic perspective.

Baptist Press offers an interesting timeline on the partial birth controversy. After the technique of partial birth abortion was first publicized, there was a history of attempts to prohibit the procedure.

According to OneNewsNow, Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, a high profile pro-life organization in the US, is warning his fellow pro-lifers not to read too much into what he calls a "philosophical" victory.
It's like a death-penalty situation," he suggests. "If the Supreme Court were to come along and say that lethal injection is inhumane and outlawed [the method], that doesn't mean that a state that has a death penalty on its books is not going to continue to carry out the death penalty," he says. "They'll just do it another way."
Judie Brown of ALL, shares Mark's concern.

....the following news item was certain to happen, eventually. The media have taken note that the five justices of the Supreme Court whose verdicts resulted yesterday in supporting the ban on partial birth abortion were all Catholics.
Never before has the court had five Catholic justices, and their joining together in a decision to limit abortion, of all hot-button issues, is likely to spark discussion about the role of religion in forming social policy.
The news report goes on to explain some of the dynamics of having five Catholics on the Supreme court
"With Catholics, you have this very substantial body of 'natural law' teaching, which gives them a very rich tradition to draw from when they are thinking about these sorts of issues," he said.

Catholic social teaching is underpinned, Masci said, by the ideas of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, who taught that there are fundamental principles -- God's law -- that provide a touchstone for navigating new issues such as stem cell research.

Protestants have access to the same material, Masci said, "but Catholic thinkers spend more time working within this tradition, which gives them a foundation for building their ideas."
...much more yet to come out of the decision to stop the heinous practice of partial birth abortion.


Caitlan Moran, who claims abortion is a moral duty and the ultimate motherly act

My recent posting on Ms. Moran pointed to the utterly corrupt and appalling thinking of the ultra-feminist mind.

Columnist Matt Abbott catalogues some of the responses on record from prominent pro-life leaders to what he described as "perhaps one of the most pro-abortion commentaries in recent years."


The Virginia Tech massacre and the value of human life

It would probably get me into some considerable trouble to say the things I did in my posting a couple days ago regarding the Virginia Tech tragedy.

I'd like to say more along those lines and I probably will later. I'm still watching the responses coming from Christian leaders and pro-lifers but not too many seem courageous enough to say the obvious.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, had important comments to make about facing the reality of evil but avoided the obvious. Some of his statements:
We dare not attempt to minimize this moral responsibility.

....The Virginia Tech horror reminds us all what human beings can do to each other.

....In the meantime, we are witnesses to the true nature of moral catastrophes such as the killings at Virginia Tech.
When about 4000 Unborns are killed daily in the US by the most violent and cruel means, one can only wonder why Dr. Mohler would neglect to mention that particular moral catastrophe, while emphasizing in a special way the killing of 32.

Have we descended so deep where we can ignore the reality of the Holocaust of the Unborn at a time when the extreme violence of our day points continually to a disregard for human life, nowhere more distinct and focussed than in the killing of unborn children?

Mother May I Be Born has no such reticence. She states it plainly: Random Acts of Murder Rooted in Abortion.
Might I suggest that the roots to our self-destruction run deeper than campus security, gun control, drug abuse or poverty.

All of these killings demonstrate an absolute absence of morality. The longer we accept the idea that we can each create our own definition of the reality of morality, i.e. moral relativism, the more chaos we create. So the more corpses there will be.

The same moral relativism that ignores truths about developing humanity in order to rationalize abortion has crept into our national psyche. Random acts of murder will continue as long as we rot our roots by denying the unborn a spot on our national family tree.

Precisely.


Jonathan Kay Again Addresses National Disgrace Of Killing Unborns

Once again, Jonathan Kay, columnist for the National Post, takes Canada to task for its failure to even engage in a discussion of debate and points to the success of militant pro-abortion forces in muzzling debate through intimidation.
The McMaster episode, tiny as it may be in the grand scheme of Canadian political life, is telling: The militant left isn't content with our country's current laissez-faire abortion policy. They also want to muzzle any debate about the issue.

This is the price we pay for political timidity: If moderate politicians don't have the courage to engage the abortion issue in Parliament, is it any wonder that pro-abortion extremists think they can shut down their opponents on university campuses, too?
Last year, Kay wrote a notable opinion, claiming that Canada needed an abortion law.
Since 1991, when the last effort died in the Senate, Canada has had no abortion law -- a shameful status that distinguishes us from every other nation in the free world. Fetal viability can begin after 23 weeks of gestation. At 37 weeks, doctors consider a pregnancy full-term. Yet by the lights of Canadian federal law, it is equally legal to kill a fetus at 10, 23, 37 or 40 weeks. Doctors are even permitted to remove part of a viable fetus from a woman before extinguishing it -- a process opaquely referred to as "intact dilation and extraction."
Kay's piece last year followed on the heels of an equally surprising column by Dr. Paul Ranalli which appeared in the Calgary Herald. Entitled "An ethical society can't avoid debate over curbing choice," Dr. Ranalli made excellent points concerning the "hidden agenda" advanced, according to many of the elites of our nation, by conservatives. Surprisingly, Ranalli noted,
As it turns out, there is a hidden agenda in this country on abortion, but it is not Harper's, or even that of card-carrying members of the Conservative party. It belongs to the Canadian people, and it is this: a majority of Canadians do not support the current open, unrestrained status of abortion in this country.

If offered the choice (to use a term abortion proponents have appropriated as their own), Canadians would support broad restrictions on the procedure.


Don't believe it? You'd be wrong, but you are not alone.


The prevailing elites in media, education, law, medicine and public policy are all more supportive of unrestricted abortion than the general public, and have worked hard, and successfully, to keep that fact hidden.
At the time, these were two very high impact stories appearing in widely circulated Canadian newspapers in quick succession. To me it was quite significant and signaled a change of sorts, perhaps a stirring deep within the soul of Canada, an emerging openness to take another look at the ethics [and horror] of killing unborns.

Around the same time, both Naomi Lakritz, columnist for the Calgary Herald, wrote a scorching piece about the killing going on at the Calgary Kensington clinic [article can be viewed here] and Claire Hoy as well, of the Orangeville Citizen spoke Canada's need for an abortion law.

Jonathan Kay's most recent comments reflect his renewed call for Canadians to address the question of legal abortion
It is a disgrace that Canada is the only civilized nation in the world without an abortion law. As far as our criminal code is concerned, there is no difference between aborting a weeks-old embryo and a viable, full-term fetus. This must change.
But this time around, using the illustration of the "small but telling teapot tempest that erupted at McMaster University" recently, Kay zeroes in on a key factor maintaining the sacrosanct status of abortion in Canada:
How does this legal black hole persist? In part, it's because pro-choice fundamentalists -- the minority of Canadians who believe that nothing should impede a woman from having an abortion at any time, for any reason--have successfully shut down the debate: If a Conservative politician so much as muses about abortion-law reform at election time, the Liberals and their media supporters will seize on it as evidence of a "secret agenda" to send society back to the era of backroom abortionists. The resulting near-total conservative self-censorship has reinforced the unspoken left-wing conceit that opposition to abortion is somehow inherently illegitimate, even hateful.
These are signs, in some small measure, of something brewing in Canada's soul and conscience.

But there is much more that needs to be done.

Please consider doing your part for the least of God's little ones.


Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Christian's Vote Can Save Canada's Unborn

In the wake of today's US Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, it needs to be noted that a great teaching moment is at hand.

As I mentioned in my previous post on this outstanding development, President Bush was directly responsible for this outcome through legislation he advanced and through his choice of appointed Supreme Court judges.

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life USA penned a column entitled "The State's Interest in Life" in response to today's Supreme Court decision. His column appears below. He notes well the importance of electing true pro-life candidates to political office. Although the context is the United States, the near exact principles apply here in Canada and it only serves to underscore the responsibility we have as Christians to learn How To Vote Life and to consistently follow through on that strategy.

Precious unborn lives, created in the image of God, and loved infinitely by God, hang in the balance.
Today the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003. This is a day of historic progress for the pro-life cause, whose ultimate goal is to restore protection to every unborn child, at every stage of development. Today, for the first time since Roe vs. Wade, the United States of America has actually banned an abortion procedure, rather than just regulated it.

The pro-abortion forces attempted to strike down the ban because it does not have a health exception. The Court, however, said that the ban's opponents failed to demonstrate that the need for a health exception was extensive enough to render the law unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the arguments that the ban is too broad or too vague. The wording of the ban is clear enough for abortionists to know when they are and are not violating the law.


The decision in this case is refreshing to read, because it emphasizes that the state has a legitimate interest in the life of the unborn child throughout pregnancy. Nor is this the first time the Court has recognized this interest. The decision refers to the state's right to "express profound respect for the life of the unborn," and affirms "that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."

The partial-birth abortion procedure differs from other abortion procedures in that it actually hijacks the delivery process and turns it into a method of killing, and hence obscures the role of the physician in the birth process. The Court today reaffirmed the state's "legitimate interest in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn." The decision also asserts, "The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed." In reaffirming these legitimate state interests in defense of the partial-birth abortion ban, the Court is also pointing the way for continued pro-life legislative activity at the state and federal level.


Today's decision also reminds us that elections matter. The work done by so many pro-life people in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 made this decision possible. The lawmakers who passed the ban were elected, as was the President who signed it into law. The Senators who confirmed the two new Supreme Court Justices were elected, as was the President who nominated those Justices. Today's fruit of these elections should lead us to renew our commitment to elect pro-life candidates in 2008.


As we give thanks for the ban on partial-birth abortion, we call for a vigorous and faithful enforcement of it. Moreover, state bans on the procedure should likewise be put into effect in a manner consistent with the federal ban upheld by today's decision.


This decision draws a significant and necessary line that stops the momentum of the abortion movement that believes it can justify any and every method of killing the unborn. The ban will indeed save lives.


There Are No Handshakes After An Abortion

If you haven’t heard yet, there are plenty of stories coming out of the UK this past week about a shortage of doctors available to perform abortions.

One of those reports came from the Daily Mail today.

Family doctor James Gerrard is one of a growing number of medical professionals who are refusing to refer women for abortion.

"Medically, abortion really isn't a popular thing to do, it is not a very technical or demanding operation and it's actually quite disheartening," he said.

"There's no handshakes or slaps on the backs afterwards, or the sense that you've done something great for someone. The best you can hope for is a sense of relief that it is over."

Notice that in this article the doctors speaking strongly against abortion and refusing to violate a true Hippocratic Oath are all Christians. Rightly so.

[Think of the ripples in the medical profession if ALL professing Christian doctors took such a stand. Many unborn lives would be saved. Shouldn’t many more Christians be active in accomplishing such a goal?]

Times columnist Libby Purves wrote a controversial piece giving her viewpoint on the trend, suggesting it was “a crisis brought on by our selfish desires.” As you might expect, she was seriously taken to task for suggesting a link between abortion and selfishness.

Here Christians can get a further look into the dynamics of the corrupted thinking surrounding killing unborn children. I often find the comment boxes associated with these news stories more instructive than the stories themselves. I’m not sure that the comments are altogether representative of all of society but it probably reflects some cross section at least.

My guess is that we have a similar situation here in Canada with regard to the percentage of doctors willing to do abortions. I think that if Christians particularly made an issue of whether their family doctor supported abortion [by refusing to accept healthcare from a physician that was not opposed to abortion] we would see an increasingly greater shortage of such doctors.

And indirectly, more public pressure to reject the killing of unborn children.

Have you asked your family doctor about where he/she stands on the killing of unborn children?


U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Ban On Partial Birth Abortion

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that a cleverly disguised form of infanticide is indeed banned.

But only just barely.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

Thank God for the new judges placed on the Supreme Court recently under George Bush's presidency. This ruling may well be Bush's pro-life legacy to the nation.

As was noted in one of my previous postings, Big Blue Wave has been doing a series of posts on late term abortion in Canada. Click on this link and scroll through her postings to get the info you want.


Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Unborn Killed By Abortion Deserve Same Respect As Virginia Tech Victims

Let me say from the start that an evil, despicable act took place yesterday in Virginia and 33 human beings lost their lives as a result of that evil. My prayers have already gone up to God on behalf of these victims and their families and friends. Their collective pain is unimaginable and profound.

Now a question must be asked.

From God’s objective—and holy—point of view, don't the children who were killed by abortion on the same day as 33 Virginia Tech students were killed deserve equal attention and respect? After all, God declared in His Word (Acts 10:34) that He is not a respecter of persons.

The context of that passage is that God does not show partiality with regard to His mercy or His justice. Deuteronomy 16:19 long ago warned, "Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons . . ." and the second chapter of James makes it clear that God is against unjust partiality. James 2:9 states, "but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."

But some will protest, "Ridiculous! The unborn, specifically fetuses, are not persons! It is outrageous and totally disrespectful to make the comparison you did."

But that’s just the point. The question, “What is the unborn?” needs to be answered. If the unborn are human beings, then they are persons, since no successful argument can be, or has been, advanced to make a valid distinction between human beings and persons.

No society throughout history who has sought to make distinctions between the two has been kindly or respectfully remembered. Neither the Nazis, who made distinction between Jews who they conceded to be human beings but who lacked true personhood under the law; nor the Americans who enslaved Blacks and used them as mere property on grounds they were non-persons; nor any other society or movement in history who possessed equally barbarous attitudes.

Nor does our current society, either on philosophical or theological grounds, consider any such distinctions to be legitimate. Except for a very small number of radical ideologues, most of who insist on such distinctions to justify their bloody agendas of sustaining legalized abortion, few individuals in our “civilized” society would even dare to think of this as a possibility.

So what’s the difference between these victims?

The Virginia Tech victims have a face, a home, a family. Each one has a history which elicit memories, images, and sounds, all of which converge most importantly in the deepness of emotions.
But the unborn brings up a blank in our minds. They have no face, no home, no childhood pictures or happy memories. There are no unique expressions, longings and abilities by which we remember them. It’s as though they never existed—as though they are unreal. We don’t add them to our numbers—they don’t count.

But they are in God’s numbers, surely and certainly. He knew them before they arrived in the womb. He had plans for them, in His mind, from before the beginning of time.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5

As with Jeremiah, God foresaw events, times, and places for each one of the loved ones created in His image. He admired their personality, talents and temperament and saw that it was good. He sees and knows each of them in the realm of their total existence, and longs to bring His plan for each one of them into reality. Surely then God has “memories” of a divine sort, and the deepest feelings for His little ones, more especially those whose lives are cut short in the womb by a vicious act of betrayal and execution.

Yesterday, on April 16, 2007, the same day of the massacre at Virginia Tech, about 288 unborn children in Canada were killed utilizing various mechanical and chemical means including dismemberment by cutting, slashing, and ripping; high intensity vacuuming whose product is a mishmash of blood and tissue; and poisoning and burning with various salts and chemicals or injecting lethal chemicals into the heart.

All these are much less humane and swift ways than death by a bullet. Some are agonizingly slow forms of death. Yet there were no headlines in Canada. No shock. No horror.
The formal definition of the word massacre, provided by Webster’s dictionary is:
the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.
The Virginia Tech massacre is over. 

Canada’s massacre continues and we continue to be silent.
image source

Monday, April 16, 2007

In Canada Would It Have Been Murder?

Judie Brown of ALL writes in her blog about Nicole Marie Beecroft, age 17, who stabbed her newborn child 135 times and then disposed of the body in a garbage bag which she placed in a garbage can outside her home.

Judie asks,
Isn't murder always the same? Isn't such a grisly act always wrong?

Could it be that Nicole simply acted out what she felt was permissible because she knew that an abortionist would have done the same thing? Was she under the impression that a woman's choice could be made at any time, even after a baby is born? Did she think that an "unwanted pregnancy" could be eliminated either before or after birth?

Nobody knows the answers to these questions, of course, but it should give us pause to reflect on what happens after 34 years of publicly defending a woman's-a mother's-right to control her own body.

When a 17 year old girl like Nicole grows up in a culture that consistently expresses a view that a pregnant woman should be the only one to decide whether or not she wants to be pregant, could that message have such a profound affect on a young girl that she would resort to such a despicable act?

Nicole Marie Beecroft now stands accused of murder. But had she paid an abortionist to solve her problem, she would never have been charged with a crime at all. Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

Yes, definitely something is wrong. And it could easily have happened in Canada, considering we have NO laws restricting abortion, right up until the unborn child exits the womb.

The killing of innocent human beings is ALWAYS wrong, but it gets more grisly, convoluted and demonic when it is made legal. That's when all of society loses its bearings.

And this kind of story simply reveals the madness.


Number Of Hospitals Performing Abortions Decreasing

Focus on the Family Canada reported last week that the number of hospitals in Canada that perform abortions is falling.

The number of hospitals in Canada that perform abortions is falling, according to a study by a national pro-abortion group called Canadians for Choice (CFC).

As the Ottawa Citizen reported, the study found that only 15.9 per cent of general hospitals – or about one in six – offered abortion services in 2006, down from 17.8 per cent in 2003. And most of those lay within 150 kilometres of the U.S. border.

As a result, the study claims, women living in the more northerly parts of the country are forced to endure limited options and hardships when seeking abortions.

In Ontario, for example, only 33 out of 94 hospitals performed abortions in 2006 – and of these, only one hospital was located north of the Trans-Canada Highway.

CFC executive director Patricia LaRue said this means many women have to drive up to 14 hours to obtain an abortion. “The travel is really demanding on these women’s lives,” she told the Citizen. “Many have to hire a babysitter, pay for a bus or take time off work.”

How our conscience has been seared by nearly 40 years of legalized abortion in Canada! Many Canadians no longer even consider the unborn in any practical sense in the equation of abortion. “The travel is really demanding on these women’s lives,” says LaRue. But think how demanding it will be for the unborn human being who has to pay with his/her life at the end of the trip!

How twisted has the logic become! Protests are made that the mother will have to “hire a babysitter, pay for a bus or take time off work,” as though these are great “hardships” and sacrifices that ought not be asked of any Canadian woman, yet the air is silent about the sacrifice called for from the unborn.

The report notes that pro-abort LaRue attributes one of the reasons fewer hospitals perform abortions is a lack of trained abortionists, and says that “Canada’s medical schools are not required to teach physicians how to perform abortions.” I say, “With good reason!” When our hospitals are required to instruct their doctors in the art of death it will be an even more dangerous day not only for unborn Canadians but for all society.

LaRue complained that “Many hospital workers were either judgmental or very misinformed” when asked about what their facility offered by way of abortion services. This also I take as a good thing since it indicates that the consciences of many in the healthcare system are still repulsed by the thought of a mother killing her unborn child.

LaRue would have us feel guilty about this situation if she could because she, like all pro-abortion activists, will not be content until every Canadian finally agrees that abortion is a “private choice” that a mother makes and nobody else has any business interfering. So much for OUR “choice.” And fortunately for LaRue, Canadian laws don’t give house thieves and rapists similar freedoms.

The dynamics of abortion always returns to that same question: What is the unborn? Until we as a nation answer that truthfully and respond in justice, we are complicit in mass child killing.


/body>