Vote Life, Canada!

Visitors Please Note This Blog Is Inactive

2009-04-12T15:21:00.010-02:30

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.

Dr. Peter Kreeft: Pro-Choice People are Insane

2008-04-09T20:49:00.003-02:30

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.

C-484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

2008-03-27T10:02:00.005-02:30

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.

Moral Arguments in Defense of the Unborn Too Rare

2008-03-25T19:01:00.008-02:30

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.

[Source]

The Fight Against Homosex—and Other Evils

2008-03-15T14:58:00.005-02:30

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.

It's Not The Homosex, Stupid

2008-03-10T10:04:00.010-02:30

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."

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

2008-03-07T13:58:00.005-03:30

Suzanne posted video of her recent ultrasound. Wow!

Judie Brown, Personhood Amendment and Catholic Bishops

2008-03-07T13:42:00.005-03:30

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.

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony

2008-03-03T09:36:00.002-03:30

Abort73.com releases its latest video.

Gallery of Pro-Life Images and Graphics

2008-02-18T12:13:00.006-03:30

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.

Vote Life, Canada! Project Suspended

2008-02-17T14:54:00.005-03:30

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.

Pope Says Prayer Is The Engine Of The World

2008-02-07T14:49:00.000-03:30

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.

[source]

Abortion Changes You: A New Outreach Soon To Be Launched

2008-02-06T16:13:00.000-03:30

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.

Graphics for International Day of the Unborn Child 2008

2008-02-03T21:28:00.000-03:30

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.

Spanish Bishops Release Statement about Voting in Elections

2008-02-01T14:24:00.000-03:30

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.”

God, Moral Judgment, and the Death Penalty

2008-02-01T11:58:00.000-03:30

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.

Further:

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.

[Source]

[image source]

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

2008-01-31T22:48:00.000-03:30

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

US March for Life and the Religion of Abortion

2008-01-31T14:39:00.000-03:30

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)

[Source]

[image source]

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

2008-01-31T13:25:00.000-03:30

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".

[Source]

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

2008-01-31T12:07:00.000-03:30

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.

A Brief Look into Politically Correct Injustice

2008-01-31T10:40:00.000-03:30

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."

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

2008-01-30T20:55:00.000-03:30

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.

[Source]

Lent: One Week and Counting

2008-01-30T09:16:00.000-03:30

Jeff Mirus of www.CatholicCulture.org gives his readers one week’s notice for Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent.

**********

Lent: One Week and Counting

I've said before that many of us don't realize we're not keeping Lent very well until about half-way through, or sometimes even long about Good Friday. So here's my call for an alliance of the weak and ineffectual: Let's do it right this year!

Ash Wednesday is just a week away. It is time now to gather a few materials together, schedule some additional periods of prayer, consider what special sacrifices you'll make, and plan some alms-giving. Here's a short list of items to help you get started:

Set the theme by reading Pope Benedict XVI's Message for Lent for 2008.

Work on practicing the presence of God. Here's a web site devoted to the methods of an acknowledged master, the famous 17th century Carmelite, Brother Lawrence: Practice God's Presence.

Think about using Lent to build virtue. Mark Lowery explains what this means in The Virtue-Driven Life.

Get ideas and resources for yourself and your family from our Lenten Workshop.

Hit the ground running on Ash Wednesday (includes the rules for fasting and abstinence).

De-Coding the Term “Pro-Life”

2008-01-29T23:12:00.000-03:30

Rudyard Kipling declared that, “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

In a timely posting, blogger Joe Healy of DefendLife.org adds clarity to the term “pro-life.”

**********

To Be or Not to Be Pro-Life?

With the ongoing election cycles, legislative sessions, and judicial nominations, many people are using the term "pro-life" to describe themselves and others. But have you stopped to think about what this term really means? I certainly hope so, for "what does the soul yearn for more ardently than the truth?" (St. Augustine); but if not, I will provide a brief reflection on what it means to be "pro-life."

It is clear that human personhood begins at conception. Philosophers and theologians have taught this for hundreds of years. Boethius wrote at the beginning of the 6th Century, "Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights." The human is the only material being to be a person; other persons are purely spiritual: angels and the Trinitarian God.

Modern science confirms that human life begins at the moment of conception. It is at this point that a new human creature exists, with its own unique human genetic code. If left alone to develop according to his or her nature, this new human creature will advance through all of the stages of prenatal development, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. This creature will be the same person throughout all of his or her phases of life and even beyond natural death into everlasting life.

At the moment of the conception of a human person the entire fabric of the universe is changed forever, as a new immortal soul is created by God and mysteriously united with a new human body. It happened when you were conceived, it happened when I was conceived, and it happened when each of the 50,000,000+ aborted Americans were conceived.

Now, back to the main point of this article. What does it mean to be "pro-life"? In a nutshell, it means that we acknowledge the truth that a human being is always a human person; that the human person has an inherent right to life throughout his or her entire life cycle; and that society has a moral obligation to protect the life of that person. It is really that simple. Anyone who claims to be pro-life but who denies any part of this definition is not being intellectually honest (and is arguably not pro-life). Who was it who said, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me?" (Mt 25:40).

Here are some common examples of people claiming to be pro-life, but who are in actuality deceiving themselves and others:

1. "I am personally pro-life, but I cannot impose my morality on others." This statement denies the fact that a human person has an inherent right to life and that society has a moral obligation to protect the life of that person. We impose our morality on others when we have laws against murder, child pornography, stealing, and so on. This is the main purpose of government - to ensure the security of its citizens. Since the unborn are people, it is the duty of the government to protect them. Any law that allows the killing of unborn people is inherently unjust. To refuse to protect the unborn from abortion is to be anti-life.

2. "Abortion should be illegal, except in the case of rape or incest (or whatever other exception someone wants to throw in)." This position denies the entire definition of what it means to be pro-life. The person who is conceived in rape or incest is still a human person and must be protected from an untimely, unnatural death. Personhood does not depend upon the moral fortitude of one's parents, so the fact that one's father committed a crime (rape, incest) against one's mother does not make the resultant person any less human. The person conceived in rape or incest still has an inherent right to life (just ask Rebecca Kiessling, Jenni Maas , or any of the other outspoken people who were conceived in rape or incest and given a chance at life!). To be for abortion exceptions is to be anti-life.

3. "Human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is justified because it will lead to life-saving cures." This position treats the human embryo as less than a person, when in fact it is a human person. It also subjects the human embryo to a radical utilitarianism where its life is regarded as less deserving of protection than another human life, when the only differences between the two are stage of development and physical location. Since stages of development and physical locations do not determine personhood, the human embryo must always be regarded as a person and not be subjected to life-ending experimentation. While we must always value the quality of life of the sick we must never use an illicit means to achieve those ends. To be pro-ESCR is to be anti-life.

4. "Euthanasia (or "mercy killing") is sometimes the best solution for the person who is sick, his or her family, and/or society in general." The person holding this position seeks to alter the definition of person to exclude those who are sick, elderly, or disabled. It is never right to take an innocent human life, not even if that person is in terrible pain and begging you to do so. It is up to us to let the natural processes take their course, while at the same time seeking healing and medical attention as appropriate. To deny someone food and water in order to hasten death is a gross offence against the human person. To allow for euthanasia is to be anti-life.

5. "I know that my candidate is not 100% pro-life, but he or she has the best chance of beating the 100% anti-life candidate in the general election, so I'm going to support him or her rather than the 100% pro-life candidate who is still in the running." This is a tempting position to take, but it is very wrong. Because of the faulty logic behind this position, abortion is still legal today. If the entire pro-life community would stand up for only truly pro-life candidates, the entire political landscape in America would change radically for the better in six years or less. We would have a 100% pro-life president, a large majority of pro-life Senators and Representatives in Congress, a large majority of pro-life legislators in our state and county governments, and pro-life governors and executives throughout America. With all of those pro-life leaders in place, our judiciary would become full of pro-life judges. Abortion-on-demand in America would end. If you don't think this is possible, look at what happened in Croatia, where the number of abortions decreased by 90% between 1989 and 2005. To be pro-life except when "political expediency" requires you to support the more anti-life of two candidates is to be anti-life.

To apply these principles to the current presidential race, it is obvious that all of the Democrat candidates are anti-life. They all favor keeping abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, and human cloning legal.

That leaves only the Republicans as pro-life possibilities:

Rudy Giuliani is anti-life, as he is in favor of keeping abortion, euthanasia, and ESCR legal;

Mitt Romney is anti-life, as he is in favor of legal abortion for those conceived in rape or incest, he is in favor of destroying at least some human embryos for research, and he does not oppose euthanasia;

John McCain is anti-life, as he is in favor of legal abortion for those conceived in rape or incest and favors the legal destruction of human embryos for ESCR;

Mike Huckabee is seemingly pro-life;

Ron Paul is seemingly pro-life;

Alan Keyes is seemingly pro-life.

Are you pro-life?

Further reading: Human Personhood Begins at Conception by Dr. Peter Kreeft.

[source]

Canada Silent No More to Meet Thursday at Supreme Court to Renounce Canada's Day of Infamy

2008-01-22T11:36:00.000-03:30

Press Release
CANADA SILENT NO MORE
January 17, 2008

Contact:
Denise Mountenay-780.939.5774 (home/office)
780.267.5714 (cell)
Founder/President of CANADA SILENT NO MORE
www.canadasilentnomore.com
Author of Forgiven…a true story

We do not celebrate, but mourn the loss of our aborted children

What:
Canada Silent No More-women who’ve had legal abortions gather to expose pain and damage of abortion…

When: Thursday January 24th from 10-11AM

Where: In front of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa

Why: Memorial to renounce the 20th anniversary of abortion on demand

Who: Women from across Canada who are silent no more, voices for our aborted children

Background: Canada Silent No More is a growing movement of women and men, hurt and damaged by legal abortion physically, emotionally and spiritually. We are collecting affidavit testimonies for possible lawsuits against abortion doctors and cancer societies for not informing women about ALL of the risk factors to abortion.

See www.afterabortion.org and www.abortionbreastcancer.com for stats/research

One of our Canada Silent No More women had an abortion by Dr. Morgentaler:

I was sued by him for a million dollars to keep quiet and go away…it is time to speak out!

**********

RELATED NEWS

In St. John’s NL the Right to Life Association of Newfoundland & Labrador will be holding a similar protest. From the email of today sent out by Patrick Hanlon, President of the Association:

Abortion Anniversary Protest

In January 1988 a Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling allowed abortion on demand for any reason and at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. To mark this anniversary, the Right to Life Association will be holding a protest in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on Duckworth Street on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 12:30-1:30 PM. This protest will encourage the public to ask themselves "Abortion. Have we gone too far?" For information visit www.AbortionInCanada.ca or call 579-1500.
I was interviewed by CBC TV today about our ads. It may be on the 6:00 CBC News today (Tuesday). Please pray for a fair representation of the issue and that the report will touch hearts.

Patrick also reminded the pro-lifers in the province of the Facebook Campaign being promoted by Theresa Matters of the National Campus Life Network. Theresa’s email appears below:

Abortion. Have we gone too far?

Help create another abortion buzz on Facebook by participating in this online campaign.

Details:
January 28th marks the 20th year of unrestricted access to abortion in Canada. With this campaign we hope to help Canadians (and others on Facebook) question the good of this for our country.
*Please note: we are NOT asking you to get a Facebook account if you do not already. If you are not on Facebook, please consider sending this to friends who are.

How to Participate: Starting now,
1. Change your profile picture to one of the attached ads. (Save the attachment and upload as your profile picture.) Also be sure to adjust the “thumbnail” version of the picture as needed.

2. Post a note on your profile about the significance of January 28th . You can use this one, or the press release from LifeCanada or write up your own:

Did you know?
Canadian law allows abortion to take place anytime during pregnancy. Even after the baby’s heart starts beating. Even after the arms and legs are formed. Even after the baby can suck its thumb, feel pain, and survive outside the womb. No medical reason needed. Abortion. Have we gone too far? Visit www.AbortionInCanada.ca

3. Join the Facebook group "abortion. Have we gone too far?" (press release is posted here) & check out www.abortionincanada.ca . This is the site that was made for the campaign by LifeCanada. There are also billboards and bus ads across the country thanks to various Right to Life groups with the same message: abortion. Have we gone too far?

4. Encourage your friends to do the same!

Thank you for your participation! Be sure to also be active offline with friends, family, co-workers etc. There are always opportunities to teach our fellow Canadians about this injustice towards unborn children and their mothers.

For Life,
Theresa
Executive Director
National Campus Life Network
Phone: 416.483.7869
Email: director@ncln.ca

Feminists for Life Slams Sarah Weddington for Betraying Women in Roe v. Wade Case

2008-01-19T22:50:00.000-03:30

Texas attorney Sarah Ragle Weddington gained world-wide fame when she and Linda Coffee represented "Jane Roe" (real name Norma McCorvey) in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case in the United States Supreme Court.

This upcoming Tuesday, January 22, is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade.

Feminists for Life of America has something to say about Weddington's betrayal of women.

**********

Weddington's Betrayal of Women
Serrin M. Foster
President, Feminists for Life of America

On the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, many will focus on the undeniable humanity of the unborn child now seen clearly by millions through sophisticated sonograms on Oprah as well as in Life and Newsweek cover stories.

Meanwhile, I will be reflecting on the impact of the choice made by attorney Sarah Weddington in 1973.

As her arguments for abortion before the Supreme Court made clear, Weddington saw the discrimination and other injustices faced by pregnant women. But she did not demand that these injustices be remedied. Instead, she demanded for women the “right” to submit to these injustices by destroying their pregnancies.

Weddington rightly pointed out the unmet needs of students: “…there are many schools where a woman is forced to quit if she becomes pregnant.” But Weddington didn’t argue against pregnancy discrimination or even for alternate solutions for a pregnant student.

Weddington did no better for women in the workplace. “In the matter of employment, she often is forced to quit at an early point in her pregnancy. She has no provision for maternity leave… She cannot get unemployment compensation under our laws, because the laws hold that she is not eligible for employment, being pregnant, and therefore is eligible for no unemployment compensation.”

For women with serious medical needs, she further noted: “There is no duty for employers to rehire women if they must drop out to carry a pregnancy to term. And, of course, this is especially hard on the many women in Texas who are heads of their own households and must provide for their already existing children.”

Weddington clearly saw the bind low-income women face when experiencing unplanned pregnancy: “At the same time, she can get no welfare to help her at a time when she has no unemployment compensation and she's not eligible for any help in getting a job to provide for herself.”

Weddington repeatedly said that women need “relief” from pregnancy, instead of arguing that women need relief from these injustices.

What if Weddington had used her legal acumen to challenge the system and address women’s needs?

By accepting pregnancy discrimination in school and workplace and the lack of support in society for pregnant women and parents, especially the poor, Weddington and the Supreme Court betrayed women and undermined the support women need and deserve.

Since then, millions of women have paid the price, struggling in school and the workplace without societal support. After all, when “it’s her body, it’s her choice,” it’s her problem.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in America, half of all abortions are performed on college-age women.

Since 1994, Feminists for Life has worked to address the unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students and staff on college campuses. For the past decade FFL’s Pregnancy Resource Forums on campuses across the country have revealed the still-unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students — especially a lack of housing, child care, telecommuting options, maternity coverage and medical riders for additional children. FFL found there is rarely a central place on campus for pregnancy and parenting resources. Even when resources are available, they are often not publicized. For pregnant and parenting students kept in the dark about the help they need and deserve, perception is their reality.

This March, which is Women’s History Month, Feminists for Life is helping college students make history for women by hosting Rallies for Resources on campuses across the country — so that women don’t feel driven to choose between sacrificing their children or their education and career plans.

The proposed Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Elizabeth Dole and Ben Nelson and Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Sue Myrick, would make grants available for up to 200 colleges and universities to host pregnancy resource forums, create resource centers on campus, and communicate available support on and off campus.

There was one thing Weddington got right. “Whether she's unmarried; whether she's pursuing an education; whether she's pursuing a career; whether she has family problems; all of the problems of personal and family life, for a woman, are bound up in the problem of abortion.”

Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.

Thirty-five years after Weddington capitulated to inherently unfair practices against pregnant and parenting women, those on both sides of the abortion debate should unite and say “no” to the status quo. Clearly women deserve better.

Bill HB916 Affirms Georgia’s Right to Secede from USA over Abortion Law

2008-01-19T21:57:00.000-03:30

Does it sound shocking to even think of the possibility? A US State seceding from the Union in 2008 over the injustice of abortion?

This news report What Do King George III and the U.S. Supreme Court Have In Common? from Georgia includes the following commentary:

Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, who can always be counted on for provocative legislation, has a bill that, among other things, declares the U.S. Supreme court lacked authority to issue its Roe v. Wade decision some 35 years ago and that states have every right to disregard it.

That’s exactly what Franklin’s bill – HB 916 – does, and then goes on to declare the practice of abortion is murder and conspiracy to commit murder per se.

This bill, of course, won’t go anywhere, but it’s worth a read, anyway, for the impassioned argument he makes as to just how the U.S. Supreme Court – like King George III - overstepped.

But don’t dismiss the issue out of hand. A certain number of Christian conservatives are very anxious to pass the Human Life Amendment – HR 536 – which was introduced late last year, and which will be a center point of the annual Right To Life rally at the Georgia Capitol this year. (It will take place precisely two weeks before Georgia’s presidential primary. Gary Bauer is the guest speaker and Mike Huckabee has agreed to attend.)

The amendment’s chances of getting to the floor aren’t good this year. It requires a super-majority vote in both chambers, which it clearly cannot get. Given the math, House leaders want to keep it off the floor to keep from bogging down the House in an ultimately useless but highly controversial debate. Backers, however, don’t seem to see it quite the same way.

Here’s some of the language from the bill itself.

(4) The Supreme Court´s inability to determine what is human life cannot legitimately serve to prohibit Georgia from fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect the lives of its citizens by prosecuting crimes against said person;

(5) The General Assembly knows the answer to that difficult question, and that answer is life begins at the moment of conception;

(9) Georgia has, therefore, reserved to itself exclusive jurisdiction over the definition and punishment of murder under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States;

(12) The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of Roe v. Wade;

(13) As it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, certainly the United States Supreme Court lacked the authority to pass, or order all states to strike or refuse to enforce, a law that is outside of its subject matter or federal jurisdiction;

(20) The nullification of a state´s properly promulgated laws is specifically delineated as an offense committed by King George against the states, for which separation became necessary; The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America;

(21) Compliance with, and continuation of, a fiat determination of the Supreme Court from nearly 35 years ago will cause the basis of this Union, and eventually the Union itself, to fall;

(24) As the United States Constitution confers to no federal branch either the authority over the definition or prosecution of murder, or the power to nullify the laws of a state that do the same, Roe v. Wade is 'no law,' is a nullity, and carries no legal effect in Georgia;

(25) The practice of abortion is murder and conspiracy to commit murder per se;

Controversial pro-life activist Neal Horsley, who is running a campaign for Governor of Georgia under the banner of The Creator’s Rights Party [CAUTION: Graphic images], has this to say about the bill:

FINALLY! Georgia Law Makers Make REAL Move To Outlaw Abortion

Scandal-Racked Jesuits Exhorted by Pope to Return to Orthodoxy

2008-01-18T19:48:00.000-03:30

Nothing has been more devastating to our current society over the past forty years or so than the rejection of divine truth regarding human sexuality. The Jesuits have had their ranks infiltrated seriously by various sexual perverts and a host of accompanying demons.

LifeSiteNews reports that last week,

Pope Benedict XVI has called on the ancient order which has been rocked by scandal to reaffirm their "total adhesion to Catholic doctrine" mentioning specifically the Church's teachings on "sexual morality".

This can only have a good effect on society as a whole as the Jesuit order responds in obedience to Benedict XVI and the Magisterium of the Church.

The once illustrious Jesuits, the great defenders of faith, have over the last 40 years been steeped in dissident controversy. Jesuit priests have featured prominently in the homosexual priest scandal and Jesuit universities have been hotbeds of dissent on Church teachings especially those on life and family.

The Pope’s entire address can be found here.

The State of the Canadian Church

2008-01-18T17:32:00.000-03:30

Jim Coggins heads up a series at Canadian Christianity.com on the Canadian Church, drawing on the expertise of a variety of researchers and church leaders.

Latest edition now online

Part VI: Those pesky moral, social issues

Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V

This series warrants examination by pro-lifers as well as a summary and critique from the pro-life perspective.

Any takers?

Joanne Byfield: Pro-Life Movement Has Made No Political Gains In Canada

2008-01-18T12:34:00.000-03:30

For a worthwhile summary of the current state of the pro-life movement in Canada, check out this article

Byfield sees slow progress in battle against abortion
Voters need to speak out before change will take place, she says

Byfield has impressive pro-life credentials. She thinks the media are playing a huge role in our current impasse.

She said in Canada it is impossible to have a public discourse about the issue of publicly funded, unrestricted access to abortion because most of the members of the mainstream media are pro-choice and consider abortion a settled issue that is not "of interest to anyone because it's not of interest to them."

No surprise, like Tristan Emmanuel, she points a finger at Christian leaders.

"Our churches aren't doing enough. There is a fear, on the part of pastors, to speak about abortion because they know there are wounded men and women out there and they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable."

Her solution?

Voters need to tell the politicians who come to their doors asking for votes, "We won't vote for you unless you do something to protect human life.

"Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point."

Joanne is certainly correct when she says that our politicians need to hear it from person to person, door to door. But how will that happen? Who can motivate citizens to take such action?

Good question. Consider this: Who controls the thinking and actions—the very morality—of our citizens? Who can have the greatest influence upon their lives?

If, generally speaking, Christians and pro-lifers do not agree that religious leaders fulfill that role almost exclusively, then I’m afraid I don’t know on what planet they are living. Granted, the “media” have very significant influence but they don’t shape the morality of the nation. They just talk to death the existing morality from their point of view. Nor do pro-lifers shape the thinking and actions of citizens to any significant extent. Isn’t that the point made by Joanne Byfield? Nor do politicians seem to be shaping the morality of our nation. Again, listen to Byfield.

Who then shapes morality?

Church leaders. The Church. And other religious leaders to a much lesser extent. The morality of Canada is essentially shaped actively or passively by our Christian leaders. The big question though for Christians and the pro-life movement as a whole is “Can we do anything about the failure of Christian leadership in Canada and thus change the moral direction of Canada?”

In the article It's Time For Pro-Lifers To Change Their Strategy In Canada Or The Toll On Babies Will Continue pro-life leaders are challenged to take their heads out of the sand and take a different approach to the defense of innocent unborn lives in Canada. The article deals more pointedly at the failure of Catholic Bishops but applies equally well to the failure of other Christian leaders. A prominent example of the fear which immobilizes pro-life leaders in Canada can be seen in this posting Are Pro-Life Leaders In Canada Afraid To Speak The Truth?

Joanne says

Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point.

No doubt everyone can participate at some level in the strategy to "get people to that point." But I would argue that the only people truly able to succeed in such a revolution of reforming voting habits is the clergy, through a reformation of the Canadian conscience. If we make Byfield's strategy our chief preoccupation, which seems to coincide with the general philosophy of action of pro-life leaders throughout Canada, we'll keep on spinning our wheels.

If anything at all can be done to halt the neo-paganism overtaking Canada, I believe that only when Christians/pro-lifers decide to take concentrated and united aim at a campaign of accountability for Canada’s clergy—the higher the ranks the better—the sooner we'll see citizens pressing political candidates door to door.

And not a minute before.

For those who claim pro-life leaders in Canada have tried such a strategy and found it impossible or impractical, I for one would like to see the evidence. Like Byfield, I see a trail of political and educational failure but where is the evidence of a national strategy to hold Christian leaders accountable for fulfilling their God ordained duties—and for their failures?

You say it can't be done? I say it's time to talk about it.

SLAPP Legal Strategy Changing Landscape of America’s Traditional Culture

2008-01-18T09:06:00.000-03:30

Insightful article on the need to loudly protest when necessary in order to preserve in our society what we hold to be true and valuable.

Such are the new politics of whispering in the twenty-first century version of the culture wars. The values that were instrumental in forming the American culture have been ignored, forgotten, or—worse—forbidden in public debate. Through court rulings, bureaucratic pronouncements, and well-intentioned but unhelpful laws, secular values have allied with government authority to dismantle the ideals of a decent nation.

[snip]

After World War II, an American journalist returned to Germany to live in a remote town in hopes of discovering why law-abiding citizens followed the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Milton Mayer interviewed ten average families, and in one of the more revealing sections of his book, They Thought They Were Free, he asked why the townspeople didn’t protest the abuses of the state. A policeman related the story of a local leader who was arrested in 1933 and “taken away” without being charged with anything. When Mayer asked why there was no outcry from citizens, the policeman told him that the people, by their silence, had given the government that right. There were “no open trials for enemies of the state,” he said. “They had forfeited their right to it.”

Read the rest of Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong

ProWomanProLife.org Personally Opposed But Will Not Force Morality

2008-01-17T22:17:00.000-03:30

I held some hope when I wrote my posting yesterday that the women at ProWomanProLife.org might respond by simply removing what appeared to be ambiguity and say, “Yes, without hesitation we totally believe abortion ought to be illegal—even though our group will not be directly involved in trying to change the law.”

But today a different picture is emerging. In a blog posting today Andrea Mrozek, as well as Brigitte Pellerin, offered a shallow and twisted [respectively] response to my concern and both women purposefully avoided making such a simple pro-life statement as suggested. Their comments seem to indicate that [to some extent, not sure what extent] they are personally opposed to abortion but they will not deny a woman the choice to make that decision. They certainly don’t think the law should be interposed between a woman and her decision to abort.

So let’s see if I have this right. They are personally opposed but they don’t want to impose their morality [through the law or otherwise] on any woman. Women, they maintain, should be free to choose [the cruel killing of their unborn children] and in the meanwhile, until women are convinced [by their group and other “pro-lifers”] to make better choices, the killing of these children ought to be permitted under the law. Have I got that right?

That seems to be what Mrozek meant when she stated today,

I may well be Canada’s first pro-choice pro-lifer.

Perhaps to some people this sounds like a “moderate” position.

But what moderate or middle ground can there be between pro-life and pro-choice? Anything less than pro-life, i.e. EVERY life, always results in a dead child—somewhere, sometime, under certain circumstances. A pro-choice pro-lifer is an oxymoron, just as contradictory as the term “a cruel kindness” and, if accepted, provides cover for just another “pro-choice” apologist—one wearing a ‘pro-life” mask this time.

Regarding the name ProWomanProLife.org….

I strongly object to their use of the name ProWoman. On the basis purely of the tragic testimony of women in the CanadaSilentNoMore campaign, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent a woman from suffering the lifelong trauma and scarring of abortion. On the basis alone that 50% of all abortions end the lives of fellow women, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent the violent “termination” of an unborn child of the female sex.

I strongly object to their use of the name ProLife. If human life has intrinsic worth then EVERY life deserves protection. If pro-life doesn’t mean that, it means nothing. Words must mean something or they mean nothing. If human life is intrinsically valuable then we have a duty as a society to preserve and protect human life at ALL stages, including preborn stages. If law means anything and protects anything, it must first and foremost protect the most vulnerable human lives from willful destruction by others. Mrozek’s ProLife group, by definition, ought to unabashedly endorse such laws.

I have emphasized that ProWomanProLife.org ought to unabashedly endorse laws which protect unborn children from being killed and which protect women from the horror of an abortion choice. Note that I did not say the group ought to divert their energies into political activism to change current laws or even to otherwise change their approach. I am simply making the claim that for the sake of the integrity of the pro-life movement in Canada, ProWomanProLife.org ought to stand on the bedrock principle of endorsing such laws. In my opinion anything less than that disqualifies them from the title “Pro-Life.”

Wouldn’t it make sense for ProWomanProLife.org to simply go on record saying they believe the killing of unborn children ought to be illegal and then go about their business of convincing women of the wrong headedness of such a decision? After all, the current laws are indeed forcing somebody’s version of morality on Canadians and it’s a deathly, devastating version at that. Why then would they refuse to make the most basic pro-woman, pro-life, pro-child and pro-human rights statement of all?

Tristan Emmanuel: Church Leaders Culpable

2008-01-17T14:07:00.000-03:30

Tristan Emmanuel, who just returned from a great conference and Caribbean cruise, shares his disappointment in his No Apologies column today.

But there was also something sad about the event.

…I was struck time and time again, by how inept the leadership of the evangelical and conservative Catholic strains of Christianity have become when it comes to defending the faith.

…they are also not equipping their congregants for the daily battle of ideas in our culture.

He makes some very good and seldom-heard points, much along the lines of my recent posting Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant. I was surprised that Tristan seemed a little more than simply disappointed by the reality he describes, given his “culture wars” background.

If he believed in the one holy, apostolic—and visible—catholic Church, no doubt he would agree near-perfectly with the analysis I offered in my posting, i.e. the failure of Bishops in their role to teach, govern and sanctify is the primary and dominant cause of our current malaise.

Tristan is certainly right when he gives credit to the Church for being the chief force in promoting a free and just society. The vast majority of society, including Christians, cannot seem to apprehend—or believe—such a concept.

I have often thought that in an ideal world - where the church was doing its job - the "ECP Centre" shouldn't be necessary. After all, churches should be advocating for brothers and sisters who find themselves on the wrong end of the law simply because they have spoke truth. The price of political freedom is free speech that gives offence. After all, what can be more offensive than the gospel's call to unrepentant sinners - be they abortionists, homosexuals or philanderers?

As I noted similarly in my posting, shouldn’t the pastors—the defenders of Truth—of Christ’s Church be the very first ones to be hauled before such “human rights” Commissions for announcing offensive truths? Instead, they have left the defense of truth to the rare courageous layman, journalist, or common citizen.

In my mind, there’s also no doubt that when those individuals fail whom God has called and ordained to announce the Gospel and defend His Truth, He can as easily “raise up the stones” to serve as salt and light to the world, to testify to His Truth and to mobilize His people.

That seems to be what Tristan alludes to in his closing paragraph.

The fact that so few pastors are actually equipping their congregants with a consistent Christian world and life view that manifests itself in "salt and light" activity - or in advocating on behalf of those who are subject of hate-crime investigations - tells me there is room for this Canadian to start equipping the saints in America.

In a similar sense, that is precisely the nature of the work undertaken by Vote Life, Canada! but without losing sight of the fact that Church leaders themselves must be continually called to live up to their God ordained roles and to account for their failures. Until the rank and file Christian is so persuaded in this task, in my opinion, we can be only marginally successful in winning the war.

Preborn Babies Are Like Unfinished Houses Says Abortionist Susan Wicklund

2008-01-17T11:51:00.000-03:30

Does worldview make a difference to your outlook on science and morals, e.g. when a new organism comes into being and how it ought to be treated if it’s of the homo sapiens variety?

Read Jill Stanek’s posting on abortionist Susan Wicklund who is promoting her new book, This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor, and see what you think.

Here’s a sample of what Jill says:

She admits in the book "of an abortion she performed for a rape victim, only to find out afterward that the fetus she terminated was conceived earlier than thought and would have been the much-loved child of the woman and her husband," according to SFGate.com.

But nevermind the whoopsies, let's talk logic. To an interviewer's question, "What do you say when people tell you that 'abortion is murder'?" Wicklund appears to first say aborted babies don't look human, so it's not murder to abort them.

Read the full entry here.

Suspect in Killing of Maria Lauterbach, Marine Cpl. Laurean, Could Face Federal Unborn Victims Law

2008-01-16T22:51:00.000-03:30

Just two days ago I blogged on the horrific news about Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach and her eight month unborn child. It seems I might have been wrong when I said

Unfortunately, North Carolina is one of 15 states without a fetal homicide law so no crime is likely to be registered against the unborn child.

LifeNews reported some welcome news today:

If he is found and convicted, the federal unborn victims law could come into play because Laurean and Lauterbach are members of the military. That's because North Carolina is one of just 15 states that don't offer legal protection for pregnant women and their unborn children.

The question of whether the federal law can come into play depends on whether Onslow County District Attorney Dewey Hudson has jurisdiction in the case or if the military legal authorities are allowed to prosecute Laurean.

Children who are killed in this fashion deserve as much justice as their mothers. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act might just provide that in this case.

I look forward to the day when we have the moral fortitude in Canada to enact similar legislation.

Is ProWomanProLife.org OK with Abortion Choice?

2008-01-16T22:10:00.000-03:30

If not, I suggest a speedy correction to this headline if possible.

Referring to Andrea Mrozek, founding director of ProWomanProLife.org, the story notes

“She tells CFRA's Madely in the Morning the group does not seek to make abortion illegal in Canada.”

But I presume Ms. Mrozek is referring here only to the mission of ProWomanProLife.org and indicating that the scope of their activities does not include a component of actively advocating for a change in the legal status of abortion in the nation.

But surely she believes that the killing of unborn children in Canada ought to be illegal.

Surely.

I listened to the radio interview.

Ms. Mrozek says that her group

“is looking to eradicate abortion in Canada…but not by legislation...legislation is not always a particularly effective way of addressing problems…”

They are “not looking at legislation to force anyone to comply...it’s not the solution, to make it illegal…”

Why not? We do it with other immoral acts such as murder, rape, and theft. It works—better than anything else, despite what Brigitte Pellerin said in the interview. It’s a deterrent. In the end—and as much as possible—people are protected from the evil that others would do to them.

Was it the wrong approach taken by the US Supreme Court recently to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion? That decision made the current practice illegal.

This new group is confused and certainly not of one mind. It seems their greatest weakness is a failure to understand the role of law in forming public morality. This is a fatal flaw. Their approach might be likened to a campaign to educate men not to beat up their wives because it’s never a good choice and suggesting the focus ought not to be on stricter laws and law enforcement because these hold no solutions.

I don’t think anyone will seriously buy it.

If killing innocent, defenseless, children—at any stage of preborn life—is heinous and murderous, then it demands a law protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.

This is the starting point for any effective pro-life work.

It sounds as though this group aims for increased dialogue on the subject of abortion with the goal of convincing women that it’s always a bad choice. Perhaps that’s a positive thing but until they are ready to assert the most basic pro-life statement, I really wonder what they will be able to accomplish and I can’t think of them as pro-life.

Are they at least pro-woman then? Let the reader judge...

50% of all aborted children are women. Their lives MUST be protected by law—as well as the other 50%.

This group needs to be unambiguous in stating this.

Abortions Outstrip Live Births in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: 100,000+ Annually

2008-01-16T15:46:00.000-03:30

The population of Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon, is estimated at about 6.5 million or about 7.4% of the total population of Vietnam; making it the highest population-concentrated city in the country.

Local sources say the number of abortions is greater than the number of births. Abortions are done to maintain incomes or out of fear for one’s reputation. Redemptorist Fathers pray for those who abort “out of cowardice” and those who fight for life. They have set up a centre that takes in unmarried pregnant women.

[snip]

Another woman, who is six-month pregnant, said the more than 1,000 cement containers hold the ashes of aborted foetuses the Redemptorists have cremated. Members of the pro-life group the former founded collect around 50 to 200 aborted foetuses every day from hospitals and clinics in the city for a decent disposal. A Redemptorist father said that each 10-by-10-by-30-centimetre container can hold the ashes of some 50 to 70 aborted foetuses. Hundreds of the containers are kept in the chapel's sanctuary.

[snip]

According to the Hồ Chí Minh City-based Center for Protection of Health of Mothers and Children and Family Planning, more than 100,000 abortions take place in the city each year and that, in recent years, abortions outnumbered births. According to its own data, there were 114,002 abortions and 112,426 births in 2003 compared to 108,193 abortions and 107,314 births in 2004.

Archbishop Chaput on the Public Life of Christian Citizens

2008-01-16T15:01:00.000-03:30

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, Colorado last week delivered an address in New Orleans entitled “Catholic Identity in the American Public Arena.”

Read it. Pay attention. It’s distinctively Catholic but it’s also distinctively Christian. I especially liked his approach towards voting for pro-abortion politicians, covered in #’s 8 & 9. Wow!

Canadians: Please replace “American” with “Canadian” whenever appropriate.

Protestants, Reformed, Baptist—pretty please—replace “Catholic” with “Christian.” You’ll be surprised!

That should do it.

Be a better citizen. Be a better Canadian. Be a better Christian.

**********

Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics

When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens. Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November, and then we can take questions and talk about anything you like.

1. George Orwell said that one of the biggest dangers for modern democratic life is dishonest political language. Dishonest language leads to dishonest politics—which then leads to bad public policy and bad law. So we need to speak and act in a spirit of truth.

2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.

3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.

4. The Church is not a political organism. She has no interest in partisanship because getting power or running governments is not what she’s about, and the more closely she identifies herself with any single party, the fewer people she can effectively reach.

5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice—and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.

6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.

7. But how do we make good political choices when so many different issues are so important and complex? The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies—although we certainly do—but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.

8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life—which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.

10. The heart of truly faithful citizenship is this: We’re better citizens when we’re more faithful Catholics. The more authentically Catholic we are in our lives, choices, actions and convictions, the more truly we will contribute to the moral and political life of our nation.

[source]

**********

Archbishop Chaput’s forthcoming book on American Catholics and public life, “Render Unto Caesar,” will be published by Doubleday later this year.

Another outstanding article from the Archbishop, helpful fare for all Christians concerned about our current culture war crisis, is entitled “Religion and the Common Good” and is available here.

Pro-life Pioneer Who Produced “Window to the Womb” Releases New 4D Video

2008-01-16T14:25:00.000-03:30

No Virginia, it’s not a “blob of tissue.” Sorry, poor-choicers, that lie is on its last legs.

Order the video here.

**********

Pro-life Pioneer Announces New Ultrasound DVD

MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- The first time Shari Richard put together a video presentation of life in the womb, called Window to the Womb, her powerful presentation brought her before the U.S. Congress. Within months, she was sharing her experience and footage with legislators on Capitol Hill. Richard's newest video continues her legacy, now utilizing the latest in medical imaging to demonstrate the life of the child in the womb.

Eyewitness 2 - The Next Generation is a sequel to another of Richard's ground-breaking videos, Eyewitness to the Earliest Days of Life. Eyewitness 2 shows 3D and 4D images from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester set to music. Fetal development is described using subtitles, making the video ready for use for any language and country.

Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant

2008-01-15T15:57:00.000-03:30

Here’s a fight destined for history books.

LifeSiteNews has a great summary to date.

On Friday, January 11, Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the now defunct conservative Western Standard magazine, appeared before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Levant was brought before the Commission after a complainant accused him of hate speech, citing Levant's decision to republish in The Western Standard a series of controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

I’m hoping that Canada’s Human Rights Commissions have met their match in Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans. If these formidable foes cannot smack down the Orwellian HRC’s in Canada, I’m afraid we are in our last days of freedom of speech [and religion] in Canada.

I’m happy that Bishop Frederick Henry has been willing to take on the HRC's, soul-less tyrants that they are. Although I’ve spoken out against Bishop Henry on some accounts, it is much to his credit that he is the only Canadian Bishop who has been threatened by such Commissions to answer for Christian teaching—which is unalterably opposed on some crucial accounts to the politically correct ideology demanded by such kangaroo courts. Bishop Henry had simply reaffirmed the truth contained in the Catholic doctrines on marriage and the family. To date he has survived the assaults and has prevailed.

In fairness, it must also be noted that, aside from the “Generals” in this war such as high profile Bishops like Frederick Henry, company captain and pastor Steven Boissoin as well as foot soldiers like Bill Whatcott and Chris Kempling have also faced off with the enemy. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly they have not prevailed. Were it a conventional war we were fighting we should not be surprised in the least by these casualties. How many soldiers normally die in battle for every General lost? Sure, that’s stretching the analogy but couldn’t statistics apply here as well because even in a spiritual battle, when humans are involved, casualties are still counted in names and faces.

A very big question here, and one which I hope will be asked, is, “Why haven’t most, if not all, of the Bishops [or other Christian leaders] been hauled to account before the Commissions?” After all, there’s but one Christian faith and one Catechism. So is it because they not declaring the Truth and defending the Faith? Should it depend on which geographic area of Canada where you live? In fact, why does the battle for freedom of speech, which may be considered a derivative of the more fundamental right to free expression, conscience and religion, have to be fought at this stage by “laypeople” and even non-Christians? Don’t misunderstand; I think it’s good and right and courageous of them to do so. Clearly, it is not only Christians who are able to recognize and adhere to the principles of natural law. So I thank God that they are doing it!

But the Bishops are the sanctifying power of society, entrusted to preach and to teach Truth. Doesn’t the truth touch at all upon this battle of rights we are now witnessing? Of course! It’s all about truth and fundamental human rights. Where do human rights originate? Hint: Don’t try to figure out that question without reference to Christian revelation and teaching, i.e. Truth. So where are the Bishops?

Our progression backwards in terms of fundamental rights and justice is simply clear testimony to a societal breakdown in the apprehension of objective truth. It is more than obvious that the “hate speech” battle now in the news reminds us that at one point in the past we had something which we now fear we have lost or are losing. What we are losing is the very integrity of Western civilization which was knitted and forged under the tutelage of Christian thought and leadership.

The ground we lose is ground lost solely because truth is consistently and appreciably undefended or misrepresented by the “Generals” in this war, the Bishops. The enemy of God and of man is only too happy to take it back, one step and one fight at a time, hoping with all his might to de-Christianize Canada and plunge it into an abyss of tyranny and totalitarianism—a political system tragically proven throughout history to be the reward of willfully ignorant, corrupted and unbelieving peoples.

The sooner we see the essential and decisive role of Bishops in the “culture war” in Canada the sooner will we govern ourselves personally in fidelity to the Truth—and the sooner will we acquire the right and duty to demand more from them—and the sooner will our society recover itself.

In the meanwhile, Mssrs. Levant and Steyn, lead us onward! Champion our cause! And God be with you!

[image source]

Huckabee Is The "Catholic" Candidate For 2008

2008-01-15T08:17:00.000-03:30

...according to a prominent Catholic layman. He takes issue with a Catholic publication that featured an article which he said contained distortions about Mike Huckabee. He makes a case that Huckabee is a better choice for Catholics than Fred Thompson.

But I can’t remain silent about the unanswered distortions about Mike Huckabee over Fred Thompson in the presidential race found in California Catholic Daily’s Jan. 11 posting, “Keeping the coalition together is the key to success.” It was an article covering the California Pro-Life Council's endorsement of Thompson for president. It was totally one-sided and misleading to Catholic voters. CCD is a great publication and provides a valuable service to Catholics. I can understand how things like this can slip through trying to meet tight deadlines.

Rest of story here.

Janet Folger also thinks Mike Huckabee is the one. She makes a very ambitious, even extreme, prediction in this article. Pro-lifers would be rejoicing in the streets if her predictions prove correct.

Bodies of Cpl Maria Lauterbach and Unborn Child Found Burned and Buried

2008-01-14T20:45:00.000-03:30

This is an unfolding—and very big—news story from Onslow County, North Carolina. It’s tragic and horrible. The young woman was in her eight month of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, North Carolina is one of 15 states without a fetal homicide law so no crime is likely to be registered against the unborn child.

$25K offered for suspect in Marine death

Cpl. Cesar A. Laurean has been charged in the first-degree murder of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who was more than eight months pregnant and had accused her alleged killer of rape.

What are believed to be the burned remains of Lauterbach and her unborn child were taken to the state medical examiner’s office in Chapel Hill, N.C., on Monday morning.

All 2,993 news articles »

Canada currently has no fetal homicide laws but has an up-coming vote on the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill (C484).

ProWomanProLife.org Launches in Canada

2008-01-14T16:04:00.000-03:30

Earlier this week I noted that poor-choice leaders in Canada were conceding the growing opposition to abortion in

Canada

Here’s more evidence.

The human rights movement of the 21^st century is moving.

**********

PRESS RELEASE

ProWomanProLife.org

Canada without abortion. By choice.

For immediate release

January 14, 2008 (Ottawa)— Today marks the launch of Canada’s first pro-woman pro-life group, ProWomanProLife, which can be found online at www.prowomanprolife.org

ProWomanProLife celebrates women, life and freedom and is being launched to mark the Morgentaler decision of January 28, 1988, which removed all restrictions on abortion in Canada at any stage of a pregnancy.

The founding director of ProWomanProLife, Andrea Mrozek, says it is time women took a non-partisan, non-religious stand against the idea that abortion is good for women and furthermore, not just a choice, but a “right.” “We have no hidden agenda here but a very open one: To eradicate abortion in Canada, not by legislation or force, but because that is what women choose. Women should band together to remove abortion from our cultural landscape,” she says. Mrozek is joined by a board of five professional women: Brigitte Pellerin in Ottawa, Raji Shankar in Toronto, Rebecca Walberg in Winnipeg and Dr. Sheryl Alger and psychologist Teresa Fraser in Calgary.

Mrozek notes that abortion has become a pressing issue of freedom of speech. “Pro-lifers are told what they can and can’t say in politics, and pro-life clubs are currently being banned on our university campuses. No Canadian should be comfortable with this suppression of dialogue, irrespective of how they feel about abortion,” Mrozek said.

To address the freedom of speech issue as well as the harm that abortion does to women, children and families, ProWomanProLife will blog with abandon. Our long-term goal is to become a charity that offers women better choices. But the first step is to raise our voices against the conventional, harmful wisdom that a willingness to kill her unborn child liberates a woman.

For further information please contact founding director Andrea Mrozek at 613-875-5888 or at andrea@prowomanprolife.org

Sikh Moderate Balwant Singh Gill Suffers Wrath of Politically Correct Sodomy

2008-01-14T15:20:00.000-03:30

Moderate Sikh spokesman Balwant Singh Gill is under fire.

In late November, I again appreciated Gill's forthrightness when he agreed to be interviewed for The Vancouver Sun's five-page package, "Canada's Changing Moral Landscape," based on an Angus Reid poll. Gill, who says he speaks for 39 Sikh temples, responded frankly when I asked him (and a variety of other Canadians) about hot-button moral issues -- including prostitution, abortion, sex outside marriage, illegal drug use, and, of course, homosexuality.

Kaboom! Gill's comments "unleased a firestorm" within the country's gay and lesbian community, according to a Jan. 2 article in Xtra West, a long-standing homosexual publication.

"I hate homosexuality," Gill told me on the telephone three weeks before the morality package ran. "Most Sikhs believe homosexuality is unnatural and you can't produce kids through it. And, secondarily, no major religion allows it."

I told Gill at the time he was being very blunt. The long-time Sikh spokesman didn't backtrack.

Gill has not been as frank lately. He's "apologized" on CBC radio and, according to Xtra West, has been widely chastised by the ethnic media.

Read the rest of “An object lesson in free speech and democracy” here.

I wonder had Gill spoken out so bluntly against abortion, would the pro-aborts have made things as scary for him as did the homosexual activists? Here’s what he had to say about legalized child-killing:

Although Gill is adamantly against homosexuality, he thinks, like many Sikhs and unlike Christian conservatives, abortion is acceptable; an individual choice.

That's why Gill has no trouble with research with stem cells obtained from embryos.

And while Gill, a married father of four who owns a trucking company, is opposed to having babies outside marriage, he believes prostitution has to be an accepted fact of life.

So Sikhs are “pro-choice” too?

Dinesh D'Souza Rebuts Atheists on Christians and Slavery

2008-01-14T14:23:00.000-03:30

D’Souza notes

Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?

Visit the comments box to see how his enemies follow him around.

He’s good.

Koran Favours Abortion According to Muslim Guru Dr. Shabbir

2008-01-14T13:25:00.000-03:30

Dr. Shabbir Ahmed hosts a blog, forums, library, etc. on his website OurBeacon.com. Subtitled The Quran as it Explains Itself, the website endeavours to “present the true picture of Islam” with “thoughts and knowledge coming direct from a challenging Islamic thinker.”

In two recent postings, yesterday and today, Dr. Shabbir set forth the unequivocal “pro-choice” position of the Prophet.

The Quran forbids KILLING of CHILDREN for fear of poverty, that’s all.
6:151 — Neither kill your children for fear of poverty nor deprive them of proper training and education. We provide for you and for them —
Obviously, this is not abortion.

He goes on to say

There can be nothing wrong with abortion when the mother’s or the fetus’ health would be endangered. Severe cardiac problems and eclampsia, epilepsy, schizophrenia in the mother, and Down’s syndrome, AIDS, incurable neurological disorders and other such diseases in the fetus diagnosed before birth through amniocentesis are a few examples. Considering the profound emotional trauma, a pregnancy through rape will easily qualify for abortion.

Recently, we heard similar talk from Al-Azhar. But that news was surprising also considering sources such as this one and this one which claims Islam permits abortion only when it’s a clear contest between the life of the mother and the life of the child.

I wish there were a Muslim pope so I could get to the bottom of this confusion.

[image source]

Barbara Kay Favours Death Penalty by Firing Squad

2008-01-14T09:26:00.000-03:30

Regarding capital punishment, Barbara Kay thinks “objective justice and sentimentality are now too inextricably tangled together” for us as a society to resolve or revisit the issue.

But she offers her opinion. It's certainly a personalized and somewhat unique statement.

I really think we have banished the death penalty for the wrong reason: because we don’t like the methods used.

What is Ms. Kay’s preferred method for termination?

In the end I keep coming back to the firing squad. It is by far my own preferred way of execution, should the occasion arise. First of all, it involves no loss of body parts, which is important in terms of human dignity. The families of the executed should have a whole body to bury. The face remains unblemished, again important for the family. The executed faces his executioners and stands upright. That is good. Lying on a gurney or strapped into a chair, the person’s helplessness and humiliation are exaggerated. A man - it is usually a man - wants to die like a man. Standing up at the same level as those who will kill him.

I only wish her detractors were at least equally, if not more, repulsed by the "legal" death penalty for Canada’s Unborn.

Could Monks, Monasteries and Prayer be Key in the Culture War?

2008-01-13T12:24:00.000-03:30

Protestants and particularly Evangelicals look upon the idea of monks and monasteries, nuns and convents, with a suspicious skeptical eye. How, they ask, is that kind of lifestyle fulfilling Jesus command to go out into the world? How, they ask, will that help to rescue our corrupt society and bring God’s salvation, justice and order?

Monks in Oklahoma are creating a cloistered compound built to last 1,000 years.

Most Catholic monasteries in this country are devoted to service, operating schools and other institutions, Anderson said. "We wanted to build a community like the ancient monasteries, a place devoted to the contemplative life and prayer."

Contemplative prayer? Is that the same as centering prayer? Isn’t that mysticism? Or New Age and Emerging Church stuff? Some Christians claim that the focus should rather be on a return to the simplicity and purity of the Christian faith.

The courtyard and monks' rooms are part of the cloistered area, not open to the public, as part of the monks' discipline in separation from the world, and silence.

"This is to create an atmosphere conducive to prayer and communion with Christ," Anderson said.

That has the sound of simplicity and purity to me.

Some Christians, such as Tony Campolo, are linking this kind of prayer and communion to a spiritual revival now starting to take root in the Western world. Others, typically faith communities that take strong anti-Catholic stands, condemn such prayer practices entirely.

However, the Pope himself, along with other Catholic leaders, has also warned of certain New Age dangers in contemporary prayer movements.

There is obviously more to monks and monasteries than the issue of contemplative prayer but an open mind to the related aspects of Christian history will do wonders to dispel confusion.

Dr. Albert Mohler on IVF and Evangelicals, Men and Abortion

2008-01-12T22:25:00.000-03:30

Dr. Albert Mohler posts two great additions to his blog, one on the recent emphasis in the LA Times on men’s’ voices in the abortion debate and another on IVF.

"We Had Abortions . . . . I've Had Abortions" -- A New Voice in the Abortion Debate

A new voice is emerging in the abortion debate, and this voice is a powerful witness to the tragedy of killing the unborn. This voice is the voice of the fathers of abortion.

"A Rather Unexpected Aspect of IVF" -- Over a Million Human Embryos Destroyed in Britain

Far too many evangelicals seem to turn a blind eye to this reality. While we celebrate the birth of a child and the gift of life, we cannot blind ourselves to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life.

Many evangelicals fail to see what many proponents of human embryonic stem cell research have noted -- a glaring inconsistency in condemning the destruction of human embryos through stem cell research, while ignoring or dismissing the destruction of embryos in IVF clinics.

More here on in-vitro fertilization.

Sister Margaret Vickers: The Culture of Death Wrapped in Compassion

2008-01-12T22:03:00.000-03:30

Nurse and former nun Margaret Vickers has been named to the Order of Canada.

Vickers is director of Providence Health Care -- Canada's largest Catholic health organization, which includes Vancouver's St. Paul's Hospital.

She hopes

Hillary Clinton will be the next American president even though Clinton is pro-choice.

Popular writer Anne Rice is also rooting for Hillary. Professor Robert P. George has something to say about that.

Former nun Margaret

doesn't condemn Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who murdered his severely handicapped daughter because he could no longer bear to hear her crying out in pain and suffering. She empathizes with his having to make such an awful choice.

Instead of requiring a lifetime commitment to the Church, Vickers says

perhaps women will be able to commit to only a few years of service before going back to normal, family life.

Because

for Sister Margaret, it's the Sisters of Charity's mission of compassionate care that's more important than abiding by tradition and old rules.

Hers is a

quiet, humble life of dedicated service; a life of poverty, chastity and ~~obedience~~.

Barack Obama Loved by Planned Parenthood

2008-01-12T20:21:00.000-03:30

Told you so. How much more proof is required?

From Jill Stanek:

Obama's girls at Planned Parenthood are sending him plenty of love. This will be tricky since they're all heartless.

Obama loves PP, too. Actually, they prostitute one another. PP helps elect Obama so he can turn around and appropriate tax money to it. He's trying to legislate PP an abortuary load of cash at the moment. PP explains why in its Obama love note....

Jill's full posting here.

A Woman’s Right to Choose: Fact or Fraud?

2008-01-11T13:19:00.000-03:30

It has been reported that Confucius was once asked what he would do to set the world right. His reply was, "I would insist on the exact definition of words." What a wise response!

To conform to Confucius’ standard, and to adopt a phrase promoted by Dr. David Reardon of AfterAbortion.org, we will henceforth refer to abortion advocates as “poor-choicers,” rather than “pro-choicers.”

Let the average citizen examine with us the reasons for this.

“But women should have the freedom to choose.”

"Abortion is acceptable because a woman has a right to choose what is right for her and her baby."

"Who are you to say what choices I can and can’t make with my body?"

“It is a woman’s right to choose because women, not men, are the ones who have abortions.”

“Those who oppose a woman’s right to choose must be exposed for who they are… anti-choicers.”

These examples of rhetorical strategy have been very successful in convincing Canadians to believe that abortion is an undeniable right that accompanies a woman’s sexuality and the ownership of her own body. Furthermore, any call for a law banning abortion on moral grounds is considered extreme, restrictive and even a challenge to Canadian freedom.

In reality, these kinds of conclusions pose great dangers to our future, to our human rights and to our freedoms. The general public needs to be reminded that no individual has an unrestricted freedom or right to choose. Consider that the most basic moral premise behind government is to protect human life. The government’s duty to do so is neither subjective nor conditional. When our privacy and our choice bring harm to another individual, our laws quickly bring an end to our right to privacy and our right to choose. Is an innocent human being damaged by a woman's choice to have an abortion? If not, no problem. If so, it is a major problem which government has a moral duty to address.

All laws impose a moral viewpoint and restrict the individual's behavior, as illustrated by laws against murder, rape, child abuse and drunk driving. When the rights of fellow human beings, “significant others,” are at stake and particularly when their very lives are at stake, every just society restricts the individual's freedom of choice. The moral basis for our law is that our personal freedom must never deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

So let us return to the original poor-choice claim and finish the statement: Women should have the right to choose…….what? Poor-choicers would reply: “…the right to choose what is best for her and her baby.” This is a wonderful sounding statement but it craftily avoids the central reality of the choice. In its simplicity the slogan implies that there is no “significant other” in the equation. Its unsubstantiated assumption is that the Unborn is undeserving of such status and can be disregarded—even omitted from the conversation. The “right to choose” slogan muddies the waters and hides from view what’s really there. And presto! The issue is now switched from “Doesn’t abortion take the life of an innocent human being?” to “Can’t a woman choose?”

The tragic, but carefully crafted, result of this distortion is that the general public is unwittingly left to imagine that the Unborn in the womb, if anything, is somehow an entirely different class of being from you or me, and as long as no further discussion or details are forthcoming, the average citizen is too pre-occupied with their own affairs to inquire further.

To further illustrate the point, what would happen if pollsters asked, "Do you favor killing unborn children?" instead of "Do you believe a woman has a right to choose?" The polls would certainly report fewer poor-choicers. Again, how many would support “a woman’s choice or right to hire an abortionist to dismember the Unborn she carries in her womb?"

But poor-choicers know that by using the right words, and using them consistently, the majority of people quickly lose the mental connection between a woman’s “right to choose” and the death of a fellow human being. By consistently labeling themselves as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” they suggest their opposition (!!!) to abortion and their dedication to defending a woman’s right to choose (…to kill her unborn). But in the end, what's the difference? Pro-choice or pro-abortion, the result is the same—dead human beings.

Insisting on the exact, and consistent, definition of the word “pro-choice,” as Confucius indicated, reveals that many pro-lifers are actually and vigorously pro-choice, in the proper sense of the word. We support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. But just as importantly, we support a pregnant woman’s right to make informed choices about the true nature of abortion. She should know of the unrelenting heartache, clinical depression, substance abuse, marriage difficulties, increased risk of breast cancer, infertility, and future birth complications commonly linked to abortion. To help her make the best choice, she ought to also know basic facts about fetal development and fetal pain studies.

Poor-choicers object to helping women make these kinds of informed choices about their pregnancy, which disqualifies them from being truly pro-choice. Their zeal has little to do with choice or women’s heath. Since most women are pressured into abortions by other persons (especially by poor-choice “friends” and “professionals”) and circumstances, how could anyone describe it as a healthy choice which sets women free? The woman’s predicament seems to offer "no choice" but the poor choice of abortion.

A woman’s right to choose is a fraud that must be exposed for the poor-choice reality it truly is.

How Planned Parenthood Continues to Farm for More Business

2008-01-10T19:53:00.000-03:30

American Life League has released its latest video exposé of Planned Parenthood. In Canada, most Planned Parenthood offices have changed their name to Canadian Federation for Sexual Health but unfortunately they are engaged in the same evil business.

The ALL news release which accompanies the video appears below.

Planned Parenthood promotes “Mile High Club,” recreational sex

WASHINGTON, D.C.— American Life League slammed the latest ad campaign of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, describing their new “safe sex” ad as a promotion tool for new abortions, and took strong exception to the fact that the campaign was paid for with taxpayer dollars.

“Planned Parenthood says it promotes sexual health, but in reality, it’s just promoting recreational sex,” said American Life League vice president Jim Sedlak. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate recently released an ad campaign to be aired on MTV, VH-1, and Comedy Central that associates Planned Parenthood with the so-called Mile High Club.

Sedlak explained, “Planned Parenthood makes one third of its income by providing contraceptives and abortions. It promotes recreational sex to keep demand for their business high.”

The Mile High Club is a slang term used to describe people who have engaged in sexual activity aboard an airplane at least one mile above the earth’s surface.

“By linking itself to the Mile High Club, Planned Parenthood’s message is loud and clear,” said Sedlak. “It is telling kids in the 18-24 age bracket to ‘Have sex! It’s fun.’ In reality, Planned Parenthood is just farming for more business.”

“What most people probably do not know is that ads such as these are paid for with taxpayer money,” said Sedlak. “The Federal Government gives at least $305 million annually to Planned Parenthood. This must end! American Life League is continuing its call to American taxpayers to sign the online petition at www.StopPlannedParenthoodTaxFunding.com and contact state and federal elected officials to cut Planned Parenthood off from our wallets!”

For more information on how to stop Planned Parenthood, go to www.all.org/stopp/planopen.htm

Barack Obama The Most Pro Abortion Candidate Ever

2008-01-10T13:13:00.000-03:30

Yesterday, in the Townhall.com forum, columnist Terence Jeffrey defended his statement that “Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.”

Jeffrey stated in his article,

He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

I’ve posted a few entries dealing with U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama and his record on abortion, one this week, one this past June and one in July.

Earlier this week I received a comment from one reader who took exception to my position that Obama ought to be disqualified on the basis of his pro-child-killing stand. Here is the reader’s comment in full, followed by the response I offered him:

Patrick Furlong said...

On the looks of things, you and I would fall on opposite ends of the spectrum of Christian faith. One reason I love and support my faith is because of the variations amongst it's followers- like you and I.

I found a quote by a Catholic hero of mine, regarding the very issue of voting and abortion, and I thought it would be relevant to share with you...

Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago, an opponent of abortion, cautioned Catholics against turning abortion into a single voting issue: "Our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. "Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. ... Consistency means we can't have it both ways."

And so, in the spirit of that urging by Cardinal Bernadine, I support Barack Obama with the belief that the value and dignity of human life DOES NOT END at conception, and I believe when I look at the issues holistically, Barack Obama is the best man for the job.

And so, in regards to health care, the issues in war torn areas like the Middle East, the Congo, and Sudan, as well as a host of other issues like gun control, taxes, social security, the environment, civil rights and immigration, Barack Obama is the man that is most in line with my ideals, with my morality.

I hope that helps you understand why I support the man. I assume we will disagree still, but for me, I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue...

"It's not about taking the right stand on issues. It's about choosing to stand in the right place. With those on the margins, those whose dignity has been denied. To choose to stand with the poor and the powerless and the voiceless. To choose to stand with the easily despised and the readily left out. To choose to stand with those whose burdens are more than they can bear. To stand with the demonized so that the demonizing will stop. And so you stand against forgetting as you leave this place, that we belong to each other." Father Greg Boyle, S.J.

http://pjfurlong.blogspot.com

ELA said...

Patrick,

You said, “I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue.”

What if the candidate was a racist, e.g. a card carrying member of the KKK? What if the candidate was a Jew-hater and a holocaust denier? What if the candidate was sympathetic to terrorism in order to achieve political ends?

Would any of these “issues” by themselves be sufficient for you to dismiss the candidate?

I hope you get the point. Without a doubt, for every voter, there are many “single issues” which would disqualify candidates. It’s simply a matter of starting to identify them and see where the “issue” of abortion might rank in that list of evils.

As we make clear in our voter’s guide:

*****
Imagine a politician saying, “I support terrorism.” And then a voter saying,” I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” You'd think they were both mad! You wouldn't think twice about rejecting a candidate who supported terrorism. His stance, permitting the public to be killed, is dangerous to society and contrary to every principle of public service.

Consider abortion in the same light. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.

*****

Regarding Cardinal Joseph Bernadine, his “consistent ethic of life” was dangerously flawed as evidenced clearly by the manner in which pro-abortion politicians interpreted his argument and used it to maintain the status quo on child killing. You might want to refer to this article.

Patrick, think about it. You’ve used the Cardinal’s point of view to nullify, for all practical purposes, your opposition in the public square to the killing of unborn children. This flies in the face of official Catholic teaching and the specific teachings of our last two Popes. Take some time to read and reflect on John Paul II’s "Evangelium Vitae," the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" as well as Cardinal Ratzinger’s "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion."

Finally, if we consider the unborn to be the poorest of all human beings, a case which can easily be made, I believe your quote by Father Greg Boyle is an earnest plea to stand with the Unborn, unalterably opposed to their legalized murder and to all those who wish to maintain our evil status quo.

Links to news stories about Obama which have recently appeared on the Vote Life, Canada! blog:

Obama's Pastor: "True Gospel" only for poor and black!Town Hall - Washington, DC—If Dr. Jeremiah Wright is the spiritual mentor that guides Barack Obama then it becomes easier to understand how and why Obama himself may not have that Biblical of a grasp in terms of understanding the gospel.

La Shawn Barber asks a question of Barack Obama
Question for Obama: What faith is this?
For instance, Obama voted against a ban on infanticide while a senator in Illinois. A partial birth abortion, as child murder is euphemistically called, is when a “doctor” grabs the unborn baby’s body and pulls him down the birth canal.

The Audacity of Nuance
The Washington Times
…Barack Obama won a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America last year. "The issue of abortion, I don't think has gone away….I don't think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I've arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination.”

Barack Obama Promotes Abortion, Slams Abstinence in Iowa Speech
Des Moines, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Campaigning in Iowa over the weekend, pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama attempted to moderate his views on abortion and abstinence education. However, he made it clear he has no interest in limiting or reducing abortions and his pro-abstinence stance is tempered by his backing of sexual education.

Obama backs Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora
More on yesterday’s reported news that Obama backs Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora
Sen. Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to weigh in on the battle over a Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora. Not surprisingly, the abortion rights supporter from Illinois said he would like to see the clinic open soon.

Warning: Catholics for a Free Choice Not Really Catholic At All

2008-01-09T20:29:00.000-03:30

Breaking News from CNA

**********

Catholics for a Free Choice attempts to confuse voters, says Catholic Association

Washington DC, Jan 9, 2008 / 03:06 pm (CNA).- A new ad campaign from the group, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), has drawn criticism from the Catholic Association for confusing the Catholic position on abortion and attempting to sway voters in the presidential primary elections.

Michael Hernon, president of the Catholic Association stated that “Catholics for a Free Choice will stop at nothing to advance abortion rights. Their latest campaign puts a new spin on their dizzying logic that promoting abortion is somehow ‘Catholic’. Catholics stand for life and will not be confused by the latest attempt of this abortion front group.”

The campaign entitled “Prevention Not Prohibition”, focuses on how policy makers can assist in the prevention of abortion through contraception, healthcare for all, sexual education and access to childcare, according to a CFFC press release.

It is the belief of the CFFC that, “Despite the protestations of a few conservative bishops, there is strong support among Catholics for policies that would reduce the need for abortion. The presidential election is a perfect place for serious candidates to take a stand and state that they too support providing women with real choices when it comes to dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.”

According to the Catholic Association, “the new campaign tries to confuse voters into believing that CFFC wants to ‘reduce the need for abortion’. They are trying to sway Catholics to vote for candidates who support abortion on demand but support other policies that may reduce the need for abortion. Catholics and people of good conscience can not tolerate or cooperate with the evil of abortion. Other policy initiatives do not mitigate a candidate's support for abortion on demand.”

The US Bishops’ Conference has called CFFC "practically speaking, an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world," funded by wealthy private foundations that seek to "promote abortion as a method of population control."

[Source]

Should Abortion Stance Be the Most Important Factor in Voting?

2008-01-09T19:36:00.000-03:30

From OneNewsNow:

POLL: Abortion stance as a factor in voting

According to our most recent poll response, voters -- at least those who frequent our website -- appear to be giving priority to issues other than a candidate's position on abortion when determining who they will support for president.

OneNewsNow.com asked: Is a presidential candidate's stand on abortion your MOST IMPORTANT consideration when choosing who to support? You said:

Read the OneNewsNow.com article that inspired this question here.

Vote Life, Canada! advises all Canadians to make the defense of innocent human life their foremost voting criterion. Although this approach might be characterized as “single issue voting,” an approach to which many people object, it can hardly be described as unreasonable.

Let’s suppose you said, “I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue.”

What if the candidate were a racist, e.g. a card carrying member of the KKK? What if the candidate were a Jew-hater and a holocaust denier? What if the candidate were sympathetic to terrorism in order to achieve political ends?

Would any of these “issues” by themselves be sufficient for you to dismiss the candidate?

I hope you get the point. Without a doubt, for every voter, there are lots of “single issues” which would disqualify candidates. It’s simply a matter of starting to identify them and see where the “issue” of abortion might rank in that list of evils.

As we make clear in our voter’s guide,

Imagine a politician saying, “I support terrorism.” And then a voter saying,” I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” You'd think they were both mad! You wouldn't think twice about rejecting a candidate who supported terrorism. His stance, permitting the public to be killed, is dangerous to society and contrary to every principle of public service.

Consider abortion in the same light. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.

Most election campaigns are not centred in basic principle but rather in policy, such as the method in which health care is delivered, or the degree of taxation levels, or the size of government. No politician questions the principle of healthcare or the principle of taxation or the principle of fighting crime. If such principles were to be abandoned it would not be surprising if the politician were considered as disqualified.

The protection of human life is a fundamental principle and the most foundational human right we possess in society. It is not a mere policy. To allow abortion, which is the killing of a human child in the womb, is to break the principle that every human life deserves protection. Those who would abandon this principle forfeit their right to political office, an office open only to those who would be a guardian of the public and of peace and good order.

To quote again from our voter’s guide:

Stop for a moment and think. If politicians aren't ready to respect the life of a small defenseless child, do you want to trust them with your life and future? If they will disregard the most basic of rights, what of your many other legitimate concerns as a citizen?

A leader’s stand on abortion certainly warrants “single-issue” voting for the Christian who believes in the justice and truth emanating from Christian revelation.

Abortion Talk: A False Dilemma Exposed

2008-01-09T13:16:00.000-03:30

I received the following e-mail commentary today from Pastor Steven W. Cornell, Senior Pastor of Millersville Bible Church, Millersville, PA. It’s also available on Pastor Steve’s blog.

Pastor Cornell, very much like Pastor John Piper, is a shining model of Christian leadership taking a bold, biblical stance in defense of life.

**********

Sanctity of Human Life Sunday

There is a false dilemma at the heart of abortion talk. It goes like this: oppose abortion and you side with politics; support abortion and you side with the health and safety of women. Is it possible that the exact opposite of this is true? Perhaps those who oppose abortion side with the health and safety of women. What do the facts substantiate?

The medical effects of abortion and post-abortion stress disorder clearly indicate that abortion is rarely a good health decision for a woman. In a congressional hearing on the impact of abortion, psychologist Wanda Franz stated, "Women who report negative after-effects from abortion know exactly what their problem is. They report horrible nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood. When they are reminded of the abortion, the women re-experienced it with terrible psychological pain ... They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities -- the role of being a mother."

Many women battle long term emotional and psychological damage because of profound regret about their abortion. Abortion proponents, who attribute these effects to induced guilt from religion and pro-life activists, trivialize the actual trauma these women endure. As a result, it is not surprising that the greatest measures of support for women facing post abortion stress disorder comes from pro-life ministries. These ministries treat seriously the feelings of women rather than trivializing them.

How long will we be duped by politically motivated deceptions? Protecting abortion is not about protecting a women’s health. Should it bother us when an organization like Planned Parenthood (while prospering on the abortion industry) intentionally deceives people about the traumatic effects of abortion? The irrefutable fact stands that abortion, as a procedure, and in its after effects, is not about the health and safety of women. It’s more about a culture of convenience, self-absorption and money.

It is frightening that a person's “being wanted or planned” is the criterion of her right to life. Yet here is another source of blatant deception. Is the life of the fetus no more than a product of conception? When a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy is she actually terminating the life of her baby? Why do we have laws related to fetal homicide? Why do Doctor’s perform fetal surgery on a baby in the womb? Consider the following facts:

“Scientifically we are human beings by virtue of our genetic makeup. The human code in the chromosomes is there from the start. We are utterly different from monkeys or rats or elephants as soon as the chromosomes of egg and sperm meet.”

“At eight weeks, all the organs are present - brain functioning, heart pumping, liver making blood cells, kidney cleaning the fluids, fingerprints formed, etc. Yet almost all abortions happen later than this date.”

“Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking a thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. We can see the amazing pictures in Life Magazine or various books or Web pages.”

“There is a principle of justice that, when two legitimate rights conflict - say the woman's right not to be pregnant, and the baby's right not to be killed - the right that should be limited is the one that would do the most harm.” (Above facts from John Piper)

It’s time to enact laws that would compassionately protect both the women facing unplanned pregnancies and their babies. But until we accept the truth that induced abortion is detrimental to the physical, emotional and psychological health of women and the deliberate destruction of an unborn child, such laws will be considered extremist.

Abortion Advocate/Lawyer Discusses Justifiable Homicide of Abortionists

2008-01-09T12:19:00.000-03:30

Unusually perceptive look by a “poor-choice” advocate—and magna cum laude lawyer—at the subject of abortion related violence, especially attacks on abortionists.

Sherry Colb, a FindLaw columnist and law professor, has an interesting ability to see reality from her opponent’s point of view. She’s very smart and engaging.

Many of us reject the view that an embryo should, or does, have the same status as a baby. However, the pro-life movement unquestioningly embraces the position that it does. Many of us also believe that killing a separate baby is morally distinct from removing a baby from inside one's body - even though death results in both cases. But the pro-life movement rejects this distinction as well, arguing that the dependence of a fetus on a pregnant woman is no different from the dependence of an infant on the assistance of a caring adult.

Once one appreciates that the pro-life movement views the practice of abortion in the way that you might view the infanticide center described above, the moral appeal of violent resistance, from the point of view of some within the pro-life movement, becomes quite comprehensible.

Full article here.

I read another interesting article by Colb entitled The Invisible Woman. She has also written a book entitled When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law. There’s an interesting review of the book and Ms. Colb’s abortion advocacy here.

It’s unfortunate, even tragic, that such a gifted woman is corrupted by the illogic of poor-choice. It sounds to me as though her thinking is somewhat in the camp of Judith Jarvis Thomson whose sophisticated defense of abortion seems compelling but, as Scott Klusendorf points out, is nevertheless quite narrow and insufficient.

Day Gardner: Barack Obama Supports the Ruthless Culture of Death

2008-01-09T10:18:00.000-03:30

Day Gardner: The Black Church and Obama

WASHINGTON, January 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following statement was released today by Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union:

I was very disturbed by an article published on January 7, 2008 in The Atlanta Journal which stated that Sen. Barack Obama garnered praise and prayers from several African-American pulpits for his landmark victory in the Iowa caucuses. I can't help but wonder…what are these pastors thinking? Of course, we all need prayer, that part was okay, but praise? I had to ask myself, do they realize what this man stands for?

Yes, blacks have continued to make great strides in breaking down color barriers and the walls of inequality and by the grace of God, some feel we have earned bragging rights with regard to our accomplishments. But, in our efforts to be bigger, brighter and best--I worry many of us have forgotten a huge part of what our struggle was all about. Racial equality was only part of it--the other part had to do with civil rights for ALL of our people.

Senator Obama doesn't care that abortion has obliterated the rights of more than 15 million black children since 1973. He doesn't care that abortion is the number one killer of African Americans surpassing deaths caused by accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths...combined!

He won't make one of his powerful speeches decrying the injustice of abortion providers as they plant killing centers firmly in black communities--making it easier to kill black children. Instead, he actually applauds their efforts! These children are denied their most basic human right –which is the right to life; a right which our ancestors so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for.

For those men and women who believe they are by God called to be ministers of the word, I ask them: What about God's plans for unborn children? Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee; Psalm 139 states: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made--my substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of thee earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect...

Unfortunately, Barack Obama supports the ruthless culture of death, one that includes killing the smallest Americans—too small to flee or fight back—leaving the black church to contemplate Obama or the word of God, i.e. Jesus or Barabbas.

[Source]

Janet Folger: US Election Will End Killing of Unborn Children

2008-01-08T20:59:00.000-03:30

Talk about sticking out your neck! I think Janet is really getting carried away here with Huckabee.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Values Voters are going to determine the outcome of this election. Don't believe me? Wait and see. One more prediction: With this election, we're going to take back the Supreme Court of the United States, stop the killing of unborn children, protect the institution of marriage and regain our freedoms of speech and religion. We're going to take back America. You heard it here first.

What do you think?

Feminist and Pro-Abort Activist Judy Rebick Reflects on Morgentaler at 20

2008-01-08T20:33:00.000-03:30

The Court.ca sought out contributions from some of those involved in the landmark judgment twenty years ago in R. v. Morgentaler. Judy Rebick shared her delightful memories.

In Morgentaler at 20: An Activist reflects, Rebick describes how the ruling was received by the Canadian women’s movement.

I’ll never forget January 28, 1988, the day the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law. It was freezing cold. A group of pro-choice activists were standing in front of the Morgentaler clinic along with a mob of media waiting to hear the news from our comrades in Ottawa.

[snip]

A reporter called me aside and said she had just heard on her radio that the Supreme Court had struck down the law on the grounds that it interfered with women’s right to security of the person. I didn’t believe her.

[snip]

A decision based on the Charter guarantee of security of the person was too much to hope for. After all, the major argument of the pro-choice movement was that a woman had the right to control her own body.

[snip]

It was a profound and incredibly long-lasting victory that for us was of equal significance to the winning of the right to vote a couple of generations before. In essence, the highest court of the land said that the abortion law violated a woman’s right to control her own body free from state interference.

The entire post is here.

Pro-Aborts Concede Growing Opposition to Abortion in Canada

2008-01-08T19:59:00.000-03:30

Says international abortion advocate Pamela Pizarro

A well organized and vocal opposition to abortion has started to take root in Canada and with the upcoming anniversary of the Morgentaler decision pro-choice activists will have their work cut out for them.

In a post entitled “Canada's Challenges in 2008” Pizarro cites the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill as worthy of first mention, identifying it as a “reproductive health” issue.

Here in Canada there are a number of issues that are going to come up in the new year in regards to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The first being an issue that I discussed in my last posting -- and that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill that will once again be debated in Canada's House of Commons. Support from the pro-choice side is strong, but fighting the anti-choice agenda will be difficult.

Isn’t it a little strange Pizarro claims the Bill is a “reproductive health” issue yet in the same breath she also concedes the bill has “strong” support from the poor-choice side? It clearly puts her in the extremist camp.

Come to think of it, poor-choicers are always advocating for the extreme path. Instead of helping women to eliminate the crisis, they “empower” women to eliminate the child.

There's nothing more extreme (or deadly) than that.

China: One Child Policy Trumps Party Loyalty

2008-01-07T21:38:00.000-03:30

Let’s hope judicial activism is at work in China as well as in Canada.

Family Research Council reports on Chinese lawsuit related to forced abortion, a story carried in Britain’s Telegraph.

In a case that is believed to be the first of its kind, China's high courts have agreed to hear the suit of a young married woman who was forced to undergo an abortion against her will. Jin Yani, who violated Chinese law by becoming pregnant five months before she wed, was ready to deliver her baby when family planning officials appeared at the couple's door. They escorted her to a local abortion center, where her unborn child was given a lethal injection and later removed from the womb. Jin lost so much blood as a result of the procedure that she was hospitalized for six weeks and, in the seven years since, has been unable to conceive. The mere fact that the Yanis' suit will be heard is a victory of seismic proportions. It is certain to draw some unwelcome attention to a deep scar on the human rights record of this year's Olympic host.

Women Only! No Men Allowed in the Abortion Debate

2008-01-07T20:11:00.000-03:30

And other such nonsense.

In his latest blog posting entitled No Men? Think Again Mark Crutcher chews out

America

’s “pro-choice” community and exposes a lethal [to babies] myth.

These early feminists saw that abortion is patronizing and paternalistic and that it doesn’t free women, it devalues them. They understood that, as a practical matter, legalized abortion is nothing more than a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men. And if the last 35 years have proven nothing else, they have proven that these women hit that nail on the head. It is now clear that the legalization of abortion, and the willingness of women to submit to it, are the two greatest gifts these kind of men have ever received.

[snip]

My final point is one that I do not expect you to understand, but I’m going to make it anyway. Men do not merely have a right to speak out against abortion, we have a responsibility to do so. Real men do not just stand around with their hands in their pockets while people like you slaughter helpless children by the millions. So you may as well get used to the fact that, as long as your death camps are churning out dead bodies, many of the people fighting you will be men.

Read the posting here.

"Let No One Touch the Child." Worldwide Moratorium on Abortion Gathering Steam

2008-01-07T19:35:00.000-03:30

Sandro Magister explains that there are two words that have resounded the loudest among both Christians and secularists: family and birth.

A very interesting article.

An initiative that goes against the grain even more emerged in Italy, during the recent Christmas festivities: the promotion of a worldwide moratorium on abortion, after the moratorium on the death penalty approved by the United Nations on December 18.

It goes against the grain because it was conceived and launched by a non-Christian intellectual, Giuliano Ferrara, founder and director of the opinion newspaper "il Foglio." And because it was immediately supported by the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference, "Avvenire," but also by personalities of other beliefs, including Roger Scruton of England, "the most influential philosopher in the world" according to "The New Yorker."

Entire article here.

The Pope on Gospel, Family & Life January 07, 2008

2008-01-07T12:23:00.000-03:30

"Greater hope is needed", he added, "so as to permit the common good of everyone to prevail over the luxury of the few and the poverty of the many. 'This great hope can only be God, ... not any god, but the God Who has a human face'".

"If there is great hope, it becomes possible to persevere in sobriety. If true hope is lacking, happiness is sought in inebriation, in superfluity, in excess, in the ruination of oneself and of the world.

"Moderation is not then just an ascetic rule, but also a path of salvation for humanity. it is now clear that only by adopting a sober lifestyle, accompanied by a serious commitment to the fair distribution of wealth, will it be possible to establish a just and sustainable order of development. To this end", the Holy Father concluded, "there is need for men and woman who nourish great hope and possess great courage".

Read the whole report...

GOD IS THE GREAT HOPE HUMANITY NEEDS

VATICAN CITY, 6 JAN 2008

"From its very first appearance", the Pope added, "the light of Christ began to attract to Him those 'whom God favours' from all languages, peoples and cultures. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that moves hearts and minds in search of truth, beauty, justice and peace".

"Men and women of all generations, have need of guidance on their pilgrimage. What star, then, can they follow? ... The star that guided the Magi ceased its function, but its spiritual light remains present in the words of the Gospel, which even today are able to guide all mankind to Jesus, Those same words - which are nothing other than the reflection of Christ, true God and true man - are authoritatively echoed in the Church ".

The Holy Father went on: "The Church, then, also performs the mission of the star for humankind. But something similar may be said for each individual Christian, called to enlighten through word and deed the footsteps of his fellows. How important it is for we Christians to remain faithful to our vocation. All true believers are always travelling along their own personal itinerary of faith and at the same time, with the little light that each of them carries within, they can and must help those whom they encounter and who perhaps are struggling to find the path that leads to Christ".

Read the whole report...

THE GOSPEL, LIGHT AND GUIDE FOR ALL MANKIND

VATICAN CITY, 6 JAN 2008

"In every continent the Catholic Church strives to ensure that human rights are not only proclaimed but put into practice. It is to be hoped that agencies created for the defence and promotion of human rights will devote all their energies to this task and, in particular, that the Human Rights Council will be able to meet the expectations generated by its creation.

"The Holy See for its part never tires of reaffirming these principles and rights, founded on what is essential and permanent in the human person. The Church willingly undertakes this service to the true dignity of human persons, created in the image of God. And on the basis of these considerations, I cannot but deplore once again the continual attacks perpetrated on every continent against human life".

"I rejoice that on 18 December the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life.

"I regret, once again, the disturbing threats to the integrity of the family, founded on the marriage of a man and a woman. Political leaders, of whatever kind, should defend this fundamental institution, the basic cell of society".

"Even religious freedom, 'an essential requirement of the dignity of every person [and] a cornerstone of the structure of human rights' is often undermined. There are many places where this right cannot be fully exercised. The Holy See defends it, demands that it be universally respected, and views with concern discrimination against Christians and against the followers of other religions.

Read the whole report...

POPE DELIVERS HIS ANNUAL ADDRESS TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS

VATICAN CITY, 7 JAN 2008

God Mandates Protection for Human Life

2008-01-04T15:11:00.000-03:30

In an article entitled “Is Life a Right?” Dr. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, explains that the Bible’s sanctity of life ethic is being overturned today and Christians must sound the clarion call.

**********

Is Life a Right?

Is human life sacred? From the very beginning the Bible reveals that it is because human beings are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

The Bible portrays God’s personal involvement in humankind’s creation, and the emphasis throughout is on man’s divinely imparted uniqueness as made in God’s image. That divine image was distorted but not destroyed by man’s fall into sin. God communicated with Adam and Eve both before sin entered the world (Genesis 1:28) and immediately after the Fall (Genesis 3:9), promising His intervention to bring redemption and restoration (Genesis 3:15).

God tells fallen but regenerate human beings, “Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding” (Psalm 32:9), but instead look to Him to instruct “and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go” (Psalm 32:8).

The central truth that emerges from these Bible verses is that human life is sacred, thus distinct in nature and design from all other life; and the differences are of kind, not degree. We are not merely the most advanced life in the animal kingdom. The Bible tells us that all life deserves respect, but that human life demands reverence.

If human life is sacred, when does it begin? The Bible reveals God’s intense interest in each human life from before conception onward. God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” (Jeremiah 1:5). Job said, God “made me in the womb” (Job 31:15).

The psalmist speaks vividly: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your words are wonderful . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13-16, NIV).

In Psalm 51:5 David says, “I have been . . . sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (HCSB). God revealed to David that he had a sin nature from the moment of conception onward. Since only human beings with a soul and a spirit possess a sin nature, human life begins at conception.

Is life a right? Since the Bible teaches that life is sacred and that it begins at conception, human life is a right that should be revered and protected from conception onward. God mandates protection for human life: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13; see also Proverbs 6:16-17, NIV).

God is the giver and sustainer of life (Genesis 2:7; Colossians 1:15-20). Our world needs desperately to hear this truth. Human life, from conception to death and at all points in between, is under violent assault. Unborn babies, handicapped infants, the terminally ill, and the aged and infirm are merely the first to be victimized. The Bible tells us that all life deserves respect, but that human life demands reverence.

Many now seek to overturn the Bible’s sanctity of life ethic, which sees human beings as possessing a sacred, God-given right to life as an inherent part of human nature. They would replace the Bible’s view of humanity with a “quality of life” ethic that makes human beings the arbiters of whether other human beings possess the potential for a sufficient “quality” of life to be allowed continued existence.

Our country since its inception has based its beliefs about human life on a sanctity of life ethic. Our Declaration of Independence declares that “human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and “that among these are Life. . . . ”

Christians must sound the clarion call against all attitudes and actions that assault the sacredness of human life. We must bear witness by deed as well as by word that human life is sacred. It is a precious, irreplaceable gift from God. We must oppose the barbaric, lethal combination of technical expertise and spiritual ignorance that would deny human life’s sacredness and that would abort and experiment on our pre-born, harvest fetal tissue, allow death into the nursery for our mentally and physically handicapped infants and encourage euthanasia in our hospitals and retirement homes.

Let us, as brothers and sisters in Christ, covenant together to pray for the discernment and the diligence to do this and more.

[Source]

Angry Pro-Aborts Resent and Regret Hollywood Movie Juno

2007-12-31T14:26:00.000-03:30

Today we get a glimpse of the significance of the movie “Juno” from the pro-baby-killers’ perspective.

On a number of recent occasions I have found news items pertaining to the new movie “Juno” intriguing and worthy of a blog posting, although time prevented such a posting. Stories such as here, here and here, all of which seemed to affirm a very significant impact and role for the movie in today’s pro-death culture.

Today the much-revered [by abortion advocates] blog RH Reality Check carries a posting by Arthur Shostak entitled Juno Misses Chance to Address Abortion Honestly.

In it he says

Indirect in its underlying condemnation of abortion on request, the film is a far more costly blow against abortion rights than anything the anti-abortion crowd could possibly hope for or ever produce - and they are big gainers (at no cost to them) from its sappy popularity.

And much more.

Abortion Survivor Regrets Her Forced Abortion at 15 Years Old

2007-12-30T15:32:00.000-03:30

From SmartCanucks.ca “The First Canadian Deals Blog”

I don’t frequent the SmartCanucks blog but I got a tip about this posting dealing with $1 Pregnancy Test Kits from Dollarama Canada. The comment that follows was made by someone named Sharnon, an abortion “survivor” who regrets her forced abortion at 15 years old.

What follows is a woman’s voice of experience, as opposed to an impersonal feminist ideology. I don’t agree with everything Sharnon said but she offers some very common sense commentary.

[Note: Some spelling, grammar corrections and paragraph breaks have been made to Sharnon’s comment.]

**********

Just to say a couple of things. First of all you can buy a home drug test in the USA. I don’t know about Canada. Also to the person who suggested the preg test for teens so they could decide on if they should keep or terminate. How tacky!

I am speaking from experience. When I was 15 my parents MADE me have an abortion. It has caused a lifetime of heartache and self destructive behavior. Not to mention I was pregnant again by the age of 17 on purpose trying to make up for the baby that had been killed. I am now 37 yrs old and have four children so far. I want more. I also have a friend with a similar situation who has five children and want more. I believe it’s because somewhere in your subconscious you are trying to make up for the one you lost. Even though in your rational mind you know that’s not possible.

Hey here is a brilliant idea why don’t we try and educate children from an early age about first waiting to have sex. Then second if they are not going to wait then explain all the methods of birth control from most effective to least. Have open relationship with our kids so they feel comfortable coming to us no matter what. For example I taught my children from an early age Abortion is murder not a choice. You have a choice BEFORE you become pregnant.

My daughter came to me when she was 16 told me she was pregnant. I hugged her told her it would be ok. And it is. I have a wonderful 2 yr old grandson that I can’t imagine my life without. Let’s teach our kids all actions have consequences. If you don’t want kids then don’t have sex. Or at the very least not unprotected sex. But even with protection pregnancy is possible. They need to know that. So the only fool proof method of preventing pregnancy is NO SEX> but if you choose to have sex then be prepared for the possibility of a baby.

IT’S THAT SIMPLE! I am sure some of you pro choicers will throw up. What about rape? Well what about adoption. Plenty of loving people would love to give a baby a home and good parents. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR MURDER> think about the double standard. If you drive drunk and hit and kill a pregnant woman you will be brought up on two counts of murder. But it’s okay to kill your unborn child through abortion. IS IT A BABY? Of course it is!

We can talk our self into anything if it inconveniences us. An unwanted pregnancy is an inconvenience so hey lets just kill it. Out of sight out of mind. I DONT THINK SO!

Catholic Priest Agrees That Abortion Is the Only Way Out

2007-12-29T18:36:00.000-03:30

I’m reading Saving Those Damned Catholics. It’s a recent book by Judie Brown, President and co-founder of American Life League. The following excerpt is a sample of the contents.

**********

My Pastor Said the Abortion Was My Only Way Out!

Fifteen years ago I got pregnant; I wasn't married at the time. I was in college. 1 knew a terrific priest at the local parish church. His name was Father X. I went to him after I found out that I was pregnant, and we talked about how this pregnancy would affect my life. I had slept with a friend, and I never intended to get pregnant. I only had one year to go before graduation; I was engaged to a very fine man from my hometown; and I knew that if i did not have an abortion, my fiancé would leave me, my degree would be put on hold, and my life would be ruined. Father X listened to all I had to say and immediately reached out to me and said, "Pat, you have to do what is right for you in this situation. God loves you, and he will be with you regardless. Just be careful and be sure to get plenty of rest after the surgery."

For years after my abortion, I wept every time I saw a baby. I had nightmares every year when what would have been my baby’s birthday approached. I did not graduate because I felt so depressed after the abortion that I turned to alcohol. I got a job in a local bar and had more one-night stands than I can remember. I did not marry the man to whom I was engaged because I felt dirty and evil; I knew I just wasn't good enough for him. I knew that I had murdered my own baby and that a Catholic priest said I was doing what was best. My pain was so severe that I often felt that death would be superior to life.

And then one day I heard about a retreat that was dedicated to helping men and women experience healing after an abortion. So I signed up. On the second day of the retreat, I had the opportunity to go to confession. I had not been back inside a Catholic church since that day when the priest encouraged me to kill my baby. But somehow I knew that God wanted me to surrender this tragic sin to Him and tell Him how broken I was, how sorrowful I was, how much I needed my Father to forgive me.

Father Murphy, the retreat priest, was the most awesome priest I have ever met in my entire life. He shared with me the wonderful nature of Christ's forgiveness when the sinner is truly repentant. He assured me that over time I would feel not only the sense of relief but the assurance that I could also forgive myself and move on with my life. He shared his sorrow with me that Father X had not explained to me that I was a mother and that my baby would bring me joy, not pain.

For the first time in years, I felt the beginning of closure. I understood my own sin and the tragic nature of that sin. I also understood the sin of that priest, who had the chance to at least tell me why I should not murder my baby and chose instead to be an accomplice in my baby's execution. At the end of the confession, Father Murphy told me that I must forgive Father X.

Now my life is back on track; I am practicing my faith, and I pray for Father X every day. But I still wonder why any priest would do such an awful thing.

The true villain in this mother's story is the priest, not the abortionist. It is true that the abortionist used the instruments to kill the baby, but the fact is that the priest facilitated the abortion by doing absolutely nothing to stand in the way of this young woman's ultimate decision. The question in a case like this one, which is all too common, is why-why would any Catholic priest be so blasé about an act so criminal, so vile, so wrong?

Why didn't he use the opportunity to affirm this young woman's motherhood? Why didn't he explain to her that her baby's life was worth more than all the degrees in the world? Why didn't he let her know that he would visit her fiancé with her and do what he could to help this young man see the courage of her decision to carry this baby to term? There are so many positive things this priest could have done-yet he chose to commiserate with the young mother and support her decision to have an abortion.

**********

[Available from Amazon as well]

Are Little Children Afraid to Come into World?

2007-12-29T10:46:00.000-03:30

An elementary school teacher was telling her class about statistics which indicate that more twins are being born these days than in the past.

"Why?" asked a little boy. "Because little children are afraid to come into the world alone," replied a big girl.

_______________

Read the rest of the story here…

Deadly Ecumenism: Evangelicals and Roman Catholics in the Waiting Room

2007-12-28T14:21:00.000-03:30

Russell D. Moore, executive director of the Henry Institute, a senior editor of Touchstone magazine and executive editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology presents a sad and tragic side of "ecumenism" in this article.

**********

The Ecumenism of the Abortion Clinic

We are accustomed to seeing Evangelicals and Roman Catholics praying together outside abortion clinics and working together for pro-life legislation. But we don't think about a less pleasant ecumenism: Catholics and Evangelicals waiting together in the lobby of an abortion facility.

A front-page article in the New York Times last September featured an inside look at the daily workings of an abortion clinic in Little Rock. The piece communicated the calloused yet tortured consciences of the women involved. They don't wish to be seen, or to make contact with others in the waiting room. Even more striking, though, are their religious commitments.

One Baptist college student, having her third abortion, is quoted in the article saying: "My religion is against it. In a way I feel I'm doing wrong, but you can be forgiven. I blame myself. I feel I shouldn't have sex at all."

"I've done this once and swore I wouldn't do it again," said a woman named Regina. "Every woman has second thoughts, especially because I'm Catholic." Regina noted that she went to confession. "The priest didn't hound me," she reported. "He said, 'People make mistakes.'"

The facility's operating room supervisor, Ebony, whom the article chillingly describes as rinsing "the blood off aborted tissues," could understand Regina's story. Ebony, too, has had an abortion. "As a Baptist, she still considered abortion a sin, but so are a lot of things we all do, she said." The article closes with the Baptist's words to the Catholic undergoing the abortion: "No problem sweetie. We've all been there."

Other Ecumenisms

As we talk through the "ecumenism of the trenches" between Catholics and Evangelicals, we should remember the sad truth that there is also an "ecumenism of the waiting room." The women ushered into the death clinics are not usually secularist feminists, proudly wearing their NOW Tshirts. More often, they are girls from St. Joseph's parish or First Baptist's youth group.

They would be counted as "prolife" on the telephone survey. They know all the right answers to the sanctity of life questions, and they can be counted on, when they reach voting age, to cast ballots for pro-life candidates. But when pregnant, they wait together for the abortionist's solution.

Whatever very real soteriological debates exist between Catholics and Evangelicals, they share, at least in the waiting room, the same doctrine of grace: "Let us sin that grace may abound" (Rom. 6:1).

The challenge for our churches is not to be more condemnatory. The message of God's grace is, after all, the heart of the gospel. The atonement of Jesus forgives every sin, including that of the shedding of innocent blood. We must comfort repentant post-abortion women with the truth that "there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ" (Rom. 8:1).

At the same time, like the Apostle Paul, we must remember that grace that is license to sin is no grace at all. The problem is not that "we all make mistakes." The issue is instead that judgment has fallen, in all of its fury, on a crucified Messiah who became sin that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21). As we proclaim God the justifier, we must not forget that this means the proclamation of God the just (Rom. 3:26).

The challenge for our churches is to reclaim the Christian emphasis on repentance. American culture is far too familiar with nominal Catholics who prepare for Lent with a hedonistic Mardi Gras and with nominal Evangelicals who plan to "rededicate their lives" at the altar call after a weekend of decadence.

Those who claim that though I am doing this thing I deem best for me, God will forgive me later, are not only presuming upon the grace of God, they are recapitulating the sin of the first man and woman: to seek autonomy and the self as god while still wishing to remain in the presence of the Holy One. This is not a repentant disposition, but instead a deeply arrogant and satanic one.

If I follow the course of my own desires, even while looking forward to forgiveness, I am worshipping another god: the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). Indeed, in this moment, the felt need for forgiveness itself is just another self-focused passion. The sinner seeks to be his own authority for what is best at the moment and to be his own authority for what is best in the future, reconciliation with God--but all on my terms and at my timing.

Real Repentance

Repentance, however, is about more than a formal appeal for the nullification of consequences, as though it were the equivalent of having a parking ticket expunged. Instead, repentance is a conviction that God is right in his holiness to judge this transgression with everlasting wrath. The sinner appeals to God to be merciful, not because the sin is justifiable, but precisely because it is not justifiable at all. Repentance, then, justifies not the sin, but the holiness and justice of the Creator.

Jesus sent away a wealthy politician because he loved his financial assets more than he sought to follow the Messiah (Matt. 19:16–22). In the same way, we must fear that generations of self-professing Christians value their "reproductive freedom" or their "personal authenticity" more than they treasure Christ. And all the while they, like the rich young ruler, approach the throne of Christ talking about eternal life, perhaps even singing "Amazing Grace."

The implications for the Church are stark. If we don't preach a biblical understanding of sin and grace, the local abortionist is ready to take our place in the pulpit.

Reprinted from Russell D. Moore, for the Editors, "Sinners Together," Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, January/February 2006.

[Source]