Monday, December 31, 2007

Angry Pro-Aborts Resent and Regret Hollywood Movie Juno

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.

Labels: ,

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Abortion Survivor Regrets Her Forced Abortion at 15 Years Old

From “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!


Saturday, December 29, 2007

Catholic Priest Agrees That Abortion Is the Only Way Out

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]

Labels: , , , ,

Are Little Children Afraid to Come into World?

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

Labels: ,

Friday, December 28, 2007

Deadly Ecumenism: Evangelicals and Roman Catholics in the Waiting Room

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.


Labels: , ,

Assassination of Bhutto the Loss of a Remarkable Pro-Life Woman

Benazir Bhutto was an extraordinary figure in our times. More than anything else, I believed she represented hope for the ordinary Pakistani. She will be missed greatly. She was also extraordinarily pro-life for a "modern" politician.


Islamabad, Pakistan ( -- The world mourned the loss of assassinated Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, but her death was more than a setback for those hoping for democracy in this war-torn nation. Bhutto was a member of an international pro-life women's movement that understood abortion causes medical, mental health and other problems for women.

When Bhutto was the prime minister of Pakistan, she helped lead a delegation to the 1994 Cairo population conference that confronted abortion advocates looking to make abortion an international right.

"I dream ...of a world where we can commit our social resources to the development of human life and not to its destruction," she told the United Nations panel at the time.

Bhutto was one of only two women to address the conference.

Instead of telling women in nations where population growth is an issue that they should kill their offspring, Bhutto told world leaders that the best solutions is "tackling infant mortality, by providing villages with electrification, by raising an army of women."

She hoped to "educate our mothers, sisters, daughters, in child welfare and population control, by setting up a bank run by women for women, to help women achieve economic independence, and to have the wherewithal to make independent choices.”

Bhutto warned conference participants that "this conference must not be viewed by the teeming masses of the world as a universal social charter seeking to impose adultery, abortion...and other such matters on individuals, societies and religions which have their own social ethos."

One of the leading pro-life women's groups in the United States, Feminists for Life of America, honored Bhutto in the 1998 issue of its publication The American Feminist. The group named Bhutto as one of the first and best "remarkable pro-life women" around the world.

"Prime Minister Bhutto advocated a more holistic approach to resolving population-control issues worldwide," the group said of the Pakistani leader.

FFLA said Bhutto prefers "the empowerment of women" over their destruction via abortion.

Related web sites:
Feminists for Life of America -


Labels: , ,

Monday, December 24, 2007

Abortion the Most Anti-Christian and Un-Christmas Choice of All

The following is a Christmas message to all those on the Vote Life, Canada! mailing list.


Dear friends of Vote Life, Canada!

The birth of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, into this world 2000 years ago signaled the most explosive event in the history of creation, outside of creation itself.

God became Man in order to save man.

We ponder this mystery anew especially at Christmas time. No doubt much of the mystery and wonder is expressed very superficially by our modern minds and lifestyles but nevertheless that sense of wonder remains and permeates this world in a pervasive, global display each year.

Christmas is, and always will be, distinctively Christian but it’s a celebration which for the most part always seems to be fashionable and politically correct even with non-Christians, other world religions and yes, even atheists. Even Richard Dawkins, the “post-Christian atheist,” acknowledges his cultural Christian roots and unhesitatingly wishes people a “Merry Christmas” during the “holiday” season.

What possible message could God, awesome Creator of the universe, be sending mankind by choosing such a humble pathway as the birth of a child, His Child? It seems so ordinary, so unspectacular, so natural that it confounds the imagination—certainly the faith—of many who strain to find the super-natural element.

Yes, so natural.

But not natural in the sense of Mother Nature but natural in the sense of God’s natural order—the order of the One who performed the act of creation. And that order cannot be separated from the Creator’s purpose.

In this explosive act God says not only “Amen” to His created order—that of bringing every new human life into existence in the shelter of a mother’s womb—but He sanctified the entire “ordinary” event with the Most Holy Presence of Jesus Christ His Son. Every womb and every birth since that One now has His sacred fingerprints, His super-natural blessing.

Which is why abortion is perfectly anti-Christian—the most hellishly perfect assault on God, on Christ, on mankind, on family and on human life itself.

Abortion, “choice on earth,” represents the most horrific and insidious delusion of our times, perhaps of all times, hypnotizing and paralyzing even the elect.

In exact antithesis, the Christmas message emphatically presents a “reason for the season” which is nothing short of the eternal Reason of God. Every child, regardless of circumstances and imperfection—even the shocking scandalous circumstances of the Christ Child’s conception—is a gift of God bringing divine hope to a fallen world and that child must be guaranteed free and protected entrance into this world.

In this imperfect, badly bruised cultural and societal body representing the culmination of two thousand years of “Western” civilization—and which we call home—still beats a distinctively Christian heart. Furthermore, I maintain that it is our society’s consensus that democracy, though itself a very imperfect instrument, is best suited to human nature and Christian peoples and therefore an enormous but historically costly gift from God (when wisely used).

This blessed instrument is fueled by the vote of its citizens, a vote which currently tolerates—and legally protects—the most anti-Christian, ungodly and inhumane conduct towards a fellow human being created in the image of God. Please consider this simple but infinitely tragic Canadian reality when you think of the work and mission of Vote Life, Canada! and urge all Canadians to please, “Vote Life, Canada!

Have a most Blessed Christmas and Thank You! for helping us to resound this joyous message.

Eric Alcock

President, Vote Life, Canada!


Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Bishop Vasa—Heartless Ogre or Humble Servant of God?

The Bulletin, the daily newspaper of Bend, Oregon, in the Catholic diocese of Baker, is carrying a detailed glimpse into the life of diocesan Bishop Robert Vasa. He’s one of the very few Catholic Bishops in North America who faithfully and successfully reflects the true, uncorrupted teachings of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Vasa has been a controversial figure in many ways. The Bulletin article tells why but it also provides an unusual look into a Bishop’s vision for his diocese.

If you have an interest in courageous Christian leadership, this story is for you.

Here’s an introduction:

Vasa, 56, is the spiritual leader for Catholics in the diocese, which covers all of Central and Eastern Oregon and is headquartered in Bend. He acknowledges that his decisions in the diocese since his ordination as bishop in 2000 have stirred controversy. He has been a tireless voice on the pro-life front, both religiously and politically. He has denounced groups such as Call To Action, which wants to reform the Catholic church to allow female clergy, let local parishes have a voice in appointing bishops and revise the church’s teachings on sexuality, among other changes. And, Vasa has required church leaders in his diocese to affirm certain tenets of the Catholic doctrine, or they are not allowed to hold their leadership positions.

Labels: ,

Lessons From Bonhoeffer On Speaking Up For The Voiceless

Pro-lifer Randy Alcorn has an engaging post up about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian of Hitler’s day who was put to death for plotting to assassinate Hitler. He discusses the similarities in the failure of Christians of Bonhoeffer’s day to stand up for Jews and the failures of Christians today to stand up for the Unborn.

There are remarkable similarities.

Here’s just a sample of Randy’s posting.

Bonhoeffer did what God’s people in any country at any time should be willing to do: stand up for the true Jesus, the only Savior. Jesus, God’s Son. Jesus, the Jew. They should speak up for the disadvantaged, who God loves. In Germany, that included the Jews. In America, that includes the poor, disabled, those suffering from racial discrimination, and unborn children, who cannot defend themselves against the atrocities of today’s death camps, the abortion clinics. (It is always far easier to see the bloodshed of another country of another time and wonder why the Christians didn’t stand up, than it is to see the atrocities of one’s own place and time, where we are failing to stand up.)

Unborn children in America are our equivalent of Jews in Germany sixty-five years ago. The church’s indifference to them, and failure to stand up in their defense, is a shame of huge proportions. Self-righteously we decry the German church’s failure to stand up for the Jews. Meanwhile we fail to stand up for the unborn. We shake our heads in disgust at the German church’s tolerance of one holocaust while ignoring our own tolerance of another.

Labels: ,

Monday, December 17, 2007

Abortion a Legal, Moral Battlefield

Jim Hughes says NO to abortion in today’s Edmonton Sun

Definition of when life begins pivotal to debate

Joyce Arthur says YES to abortion in today’s Edmonton Sun

Greatest legacy of Supreme Court ruling is freedom and equality for women


Vancouver Sun Conducts National Poll on Canada’s Morality

What do you believe is right and wrong asks the Vancouver Sun.

Find out just what kind of Canadian moral type you are by taking an online Vancouver Sun quiz at

It takes only a few minutes.

You might discover you're a strict moralist, who just can't accept abortion and homosexuality or prostitution. Or perhaps, by filling in what you think is morally acceptable or not, you'll learn you're a laissez-faire person, who believes almost anything goes when it comes to sex, animal cloning or euthanasia.

Then again, through our exclusive national opinion poll, you might be surprised to find out you belong to a large group of Canadians known as the thoughtful conservatives, who are okay with sex outside marriage but opposed to wearing fur.

Or, perhaps like many Canadians, you're an accepting MOR, a middle-of-the-road person on everything from divorce to the death penalty.

Of course, you could end up in the camp of the relativists and the uncertain, the people who have trouble deciding what they think is ethical.

Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun offers his take on what this poll says about the moral compass of Canadians.
Which way does your moral compass point?

Here’s one little glimpse of Todd’s analysis.

More than 60 per cent of Canadians find abortion and homosexuality morally acceptable, for instance, compared to 47 per cent of Americans who endorse homosexuality and only 43 per cent who are all right on abortion. In addition, only 54 per cent of Americans find it morally acceptable to have a baby outside marriage, compared to 83 per cent of Canadians.

The Vancouver Sun also reports on the surprising results of this poll for B.C.
We're Not So Laid-Back in Lotusland Anymore

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 16, 2007

The Biggest Mistake: My Abortion

Abortion is like childbirth—without the baby. So says Charisse Marie, blogger at Radiant God, who posts her own poignant and exceptionally transparent experience, stating first that “what I have discovered in my Christian circles, is that those women who are strongly opposed to abortions all have one thing in common—They've had them.”

She then goes on to relate, insightfully, her own abortion story when a single mom of 18.


When people see radical Christian women who are unabashedly Pro Life, it seems that they are judged for being ignorant, stupid, living in "prehistoric times" or the "dark ages" and aren't respected for being knowledgeable about anything, particularly women's rights.

But you see, what I have discovered in my Christian circles, is that those women who are strongly opposed to abortions all have one thing in common-

They've had them.

You see, I can tell you what it feels like to live with the guilt of knowing that you murdered your baby. I can tell you that abortion is murder without throwing condemnation, guilt, and shame in your face- not because I am pro-life- but because I had an abortion.

I was a teen mother when I had an abortion and the one thing that I will never forget—is that abortion feels like childbirth. It isn't like a medical procedure where you are numbed, slip into a dreamy state, and wake up minus a problem that you fear will ruin your life.

You go through pains similar to contractions, you bleed for two weeks or more—your stomach cramps with pain—you may even get milk in your breasts because your body is expecting to nourish the baby that it can tell is no longer in your womb.

Abortion is like childbirth—without the baby.

I was 18, and had been pregnant at 15. By the time Larissa was born, I was 16 years old, can you believe that? The sweet sixteen that I had dreamed about since I was a little girl, shading with pink crayons in my Barbie coloring book, imagining who my "Ken" would be at my "sweet sixteen dance" was interrupted by maternity clothes and the reality of stretch marks and itchy skin.

Larissa was two and I was in hair school. I wanted to make a good life for her as a single mother. I didn't see how another baby would fit in—I didn't even think of the baby as a baby.

You see, on my weekends I had a little problem—it was leaving Larissa with my Aunt as a babysitter and going out binge drinking. Binge drinking comes with many side effects and consequences and for many young girls, pregnancy is one of them.

I was so drunk for those weekends; I don't know who the father was. I don't remember half of the instances—that's just great isn't it? Can you imagine being so drunk that you end up pregnant and have no idea what happened?

I am sure there are a few of you out there who know where I am coming from- maybe Britney Spears does, what do you think?

It wasn't that I wanted to have an abortion; it wasn't anything except that I just didn't want to be pregnant. I wonder if that makes sense. It was a horrible time and I couldn't deal with the reality that I was pregnant. I felt like I had done the worse thing in the world.

You see, if you read my testimony, you know that I don't know my father, have no clue who he is, and at this point in my life, since I am 39 years old, I don't think I ever will. The reality that I had just recreated that situation for a child was more than I could bear.

It was the biggest slap in the face. I actually began to block out of my mind the reality that I was pregnant. I remember taking a home pregnancy test, and it turned such a dark blue so fast—it was a cobalt blue.

I will always remember that color. I've had many pregnancy tests since then, but that is the only test I remember like that.

I went out one weekend, after learning I was pregnant. I woke up the next morning after binge drinking, then it dawned on me, "Aren't I pregnant?"

How could I have been so far gone? How could I forget that there was a growing life inside of me? Despite the origins, despite my sins, there was a child who was innocent, oblivious to it all, and I forgot. I got drunk—I didn't even remember.

My stomach began showing very fast. By the time I had the abortion I was 14 weeks and people were already commenting that I was pregnant.

I went to the doctor and they scheduled me an ultrasound, because they thought I was further along then I was.

While in the office, they turned the machine away from me. I asked to see it but they wouldn't let me. Then something strange happened, the technician began apologizing profusely as I could hear the baby's heartbeat loud and clear. Oh God forgive me. I heard my baby's heartbeat, and still pretended that I wasn't really pregnant—that it wasn't really a baby.

How could I be so confused and not confused at all? How could I want something to not exist so badly that I would lie to myself to convince myself something wasn't true when it was staring me in the face?

When I had the abortion, I thought the doctor looked surprised.

One of the guys that I had been "partying" with was the son of identical twins. It was very strange, but at that moment when the doctor was finishing the abortion, I knew that I was carrying twins.

I turned my head to the side and just stared at this cold white wall, I asked the doctor if it was a boy or girl and he wouldn't answer me. I guess maybe they aren't accustomed to those kinds of questions.

I know that I was carrying twins. I know that is why I had suffered really bad morning sickness, why the pregnancy test turned blue so quickly, why the heartbeat was "extra" loud, why I looked big so quickly, and what was so strange- was that during the abortion- I finally knew who the father was. Though there is no way for me to prove it, I know that it was twins.

How many other girls have had abortions and live with the guilt of killing one baby, when they have actually killed two, or even three?

As soon as the abortion was over, I knew I had made a mistake. I felt so numb. Several days later, I received a visitor- the "guy" that I was sure had been the father. I told him the truth—how I had been "partying" what had happened and that I had an abortion. He looked at me and said, "I would have married you."

I never forgot that.

Those babies would be twenty now. I know that they are with Jesus- I know that I am forgiven.

But if anyone wants to think that I am pro life because I am ignorant, live in the dark ages, or want to "impose my crazy religious beliefs" on someone else…

you had better think again.

I am Pro Life because I have experienced the true side of abortion first hand and the ironic thing—is that I just wanted the baby to go away—I just didn't want to be pregnant—I just wanted to wake up and find that I was dreaming and I wouldn't have to deal with this.

It didn't go away…

It never will…

And I have been dealing with the reality of that decision ever since.


So you've read the entirety of Charisse's account in her blogpost. Now read this stunning follow-up post which she made.

Irrespective of our sin and failures, God is God. He makes ways to rescue us and especially those who turn out to be the victims of our sins. If only we would trust Him always.

Being a Christian is really the only thing in life that makes sense.

Praise God!


Friday, December 14, 2007

Demographics—Driver of Change and Crippler of Society

Thinking about the future in Canada is very troubling for me for any number of reasons.

My grandson is just one year old. And I hope to have many other grandchildren. In 2040, just about the time my grandson would be getting himself seriously established in the workforce, about 25% of Canadians will be over 65 years old and a seriously diminished number of working Canadians will have to support them.

The strains and stresses produced by these dynamics stagger my imagination. We are committing social and political suicide.


Demographics—the driver of change

This is the time of year media types like myself dust off the crystal ball and take a look into the future but there seems to be a lot of no go zones when it comes to looking at some of the most serious issues impacting society.

A great case in point is the massive demographic shift that every Western nation including Canada is undergoing. It's a phenomenon that is already having a profound impact on healthcare, immigration, employment trends and business yet my bet is that if you review all the broadcasts or columns talking about major trends in the next month you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple that mention demographics.

Every once in a while I try a sell demographics as the most important subject we ignore, especially when it comes to the healthcare debate but given that the aging population plus falling birth rates in Western nations is arguably the most important driver of change in our society you'd think it would rate more attention.

Ten years ago David Foote had a best seller entitled, Boom Bust and Echo and last year Mark Steyn focused on falling birth rates in his best seller America Alone but the subject doesn't capture the imagination in the same way as things like global warming, a bird flu pandemic, the substance abuse probelms of Britney Spears or the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Yet scratch the surface of so many recent news stories from Muslim riots in the outskirts of Paris to the financial woes of General Motors and you'll find demographics play a pivotal role.

In the last year the news was full of stories on care for seniors, falling school enrollment, meagre economic growth in much of the western world, cultural assimilation in Europe and healthcare financing, which are all driven by demographic trends.

Unfortunately politicians don't want to touch the subject because any talk of adjusting government spending is political suicide. When newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested changing public sector pension to bring them in line with private ones transit workers went on strike for a week in November. Across the western world the "me generation" has made it clear that they won't tolerate any changes to the welfare grab in spite of the fact that actuarial accountants make clear the current system is unsustainable.

In Canada, our birth rate of 1.48 is far under the level to sustain the current population, which would require a rate of 2.1 yet few seem to talk about the consequences. In Japan and parts of Europe the trend is already further along with the past year showing already more deaths than births.

Since Canada's valued social programs were created in the 1950s and 1960s, our birth rates have declined and our mortality and mortality rates have decreased. In the mid fifties 39.4 percent of the population was under 20 while 7.7 percent was over 65. By 2004, the numbers had changed dramatically with the under 20 proportion dropping to 24.6 percent of the population while those over 65 increased to 13 percent. The kicker is that by 2040 the under 20 will have dropped to about twenty percent while the over 65 crowd will make up nearly a quarter of the population.

Simply put those are not the projections that our programs were predicated on. Something has to give and "that something" is what all serious commentators on our future have to focus on.

The question becomes how are we going to handle the problems. Are we going to cut benefits, raise the retirement age of entitlement, loosen immigration rules or simply implode because we didn't address the issue soon enough? Continuing to ignore the problem only guarantees the disruptions the demographic shift cause will be greater.

Let an honest debate begin.


h/t Free North America

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

A Welcome Sign: Bishop Hot Under the Collar

Passion overflows in this news report.

Archbishop of York cuts up his dog collar in astonishing live TV
The Archbishop of York today cut up his dog collar on live television in a protest over the rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Dr John Sentamu said he will refuse to wear the clergyman's badge of identity until Mugabe is out of office.
I’ve got to say that this is a sure fire way though to get some publicity.

Can we please have one of our Canadian Bishops do the same thing, being outraged by the ongoing child-killing in Canada?

What’s worse: dictatorial rule in Zimbabwe or dismembering 100,000+ human beings yearly in Canada? Maybe that’s a poor way to frame the case, especially if you live in Zimbabwe, but I think the reader will see the point.

But alas, the Bishops of Canada are more outraged over Harper’s recent decision regarding capital punishment for convicted criminals. Perhaps not enraged enough to cut up their collars, but then again, who knows? Surely there must be something that gets them really riled up.

Canadian bishops call on government to oppose capital punishment internationally
OTTAWA, Dec 12, 2007 (CNA) .- The president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked the Prime Minister of Canada to “strenuously” intervene when Canadians face a death sentence in other countries.

What about when tiny defenseless Canadians face a death sentence in their own country? When in recent history have the Bishops ever made such a statement and a plea for the Unborn? Also take particular note how quickly the Bishops were able to get together an official statement—even an official letter.

Archbishop Weisgerber said the Permanent Council was “most concerned” that the Canadian government was prepared to accept the execution of Canadians in other countries. But come to think of it, weren’t the Bishops supposed to reach a decision in that same Permanent Council Meeting on the question of Amnesty International?

AI is already involved in plans to pave the way for countless more worldwide abortions. Aren’t the Bishops “most concerned” about that? No press release has yet been issued on the AI matter and it’s been about one year and a half since the news broke.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Baby Killing Doctors Trying to Bully Pro-Life Doctors into Deathly Practice

Press Release today by Christian Medical Association.

Physicians Call on The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to Stop Attacking Conscience Rights

MEDIA ADVISORY, December 11 /Christian Newswire/ -- The nation's largest faith- based association of physicians, the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association (, today joined other leading national organizations in challenging The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to stop its attack on the conscience rights of pro-life physicians.

A letter, drafted by CMA and signed by other national organizations, blasted ACOG's Committee on Ethics position statement, " The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine." CMA's letter noted that the statement "suggests a profound misunderstanding of the nature and exercise of conscience, an underlying bias against persons of faith and an apparent attempt to disenfranchise physicians who oppose ACOG's political activism on abortion."

CMA CEO David Stevens, MD said, "ACOG is not only out of touch with conscience-driven physicians, but also with our long-standing American tradition to protect the rights of citizens to not participate in conscience-violating actions-especially when those actions would take a human life. That American tradition rests on constitutional principles of religious freedom and speech."

ACOG's position paper targets pro-life physicians, insisting that abortion-objecting physicians refer patients to get abortions and declaring that physicians who will not participate in conscience-violating procedures and prescriptions must actually move close to doctors who will.

Dr. Stevens added, "Many physicians had been realizing that because of their aggressive abortion lobbying, ACOG officials do not represent the values of most physicians and mainstream medicine. This statement goes a step beyond not representing our life-affirming values to actually advocating policies to prevent us from exercising those values. ACOG's attitude seems to be, 'If you don't toe the ACOG line on abortion, the 'morning-after pill,' and the application of reproductive technology, then you shouldn't be practicing obstetrics--and if you do, we're going to do everything in our power to force you to accommodate our abortion agenda."

CMA Executive Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician and gynecologist, noted, "I have withdrawn my ACOG membership of over 25 years. My conscience can no longer support their lack of conscience. ACOG's strategy seeks to marginalize dissenting opinions. I as an obstetrician have a moral obligation not only to act in my patient's best interest, but also in the best interest of the developing baby, and of society as a whole."


Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Decries Honours Heaped by Montreal’s Cardinal Turcotte on Chief Justice Antonio Lamer

Distributed to the media and posted today to the Vote Life, Canada! website:

Tuesday, December 11, 2007


Vote Life, Canada! Decries Honours Heaped by Montreal’s Cardinal Turcotte on Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, One of Chief Architects of Canada’s Culture of Death

Contact: Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

Toronto, ON December 11/Christian Newswire—The recent funeral of Canada’s former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer was presided over in Montreal’s Cathedral by Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte who described Lamer as "a giant of the law," claiming that his passion for justice would make the whole world more peaceful and serene and intimating that his style of justice pleased God.

“What scandalous and absurd remarks were these and others made by the Cardinal,” protests Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! “This event illustrates well the case made in our “Open Letter” that the Catholic Bishops of Canada are sustaining and fostering a pseudo-catholicism which has overtaken Canada and fatally blinded the vast majority of Catholics to the true tenets of Catholicism.”

The truth says Alcock, is that “Lamer practically denied the concept of Common Good, as set forth by Church teaching, and pursued his own perverse notion of individual liberty and autonomy as a democratic right, thereby denying God’s true justice.”

“Incredibly, by his own testimony at times, he sought to divorce legal considerations from morality, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the absolute law of God, urging Canadians to accept the secular nature of Canadian society demanded by the Charter of Rights. This is the secularization link to which Catholic Bishops like Marc Ouellet appear blind; a link which starts in every Bishop’s own diocese through a failure to adopt a faithful (to official teachings), comprehensive and determined approach to Catholic catechesis and exacerbated by a serious neglect of Catholic discipline mandated by Holy Scripture and Tradition. Both failures make it impossible to prevent—and rout—the radical anti-life and anti-family politics or ‘democracy’ espoused by renegade Catholics like Lamer.”

“A solid orthodox Catholic faith would have uniquely positioned Lamer to guide Canada safely through the choppy complex waters of Charter interpretations for the greater Common Good of Canada,” observed Alcock. “But his pseudo-catholic faith, imbibed and lived out approvingly under the tutelage of Canada’s pseudo-catholic Bishops, led rather to the dismemberment of millions of unborn children and also the intense assault on family and marriage.”

Alcock maintains that Lamer’s spurious Catholicism and the nation-wide scandal it spawned ought to have provoked the firm rebuke and correction of some Canadian Bishop aiming to preserve the Common Good, protect the innocent and defenseless and save faithful Catholics and other Christians from devastating confusion. According to Catholic teaching, scandal is defined as “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.”

“The fact that not one Canadian Bishop is on record addressing this long term national scandal testifies to the pervasive and spiritually corrupting effect of pseudo-catholicism. The lukewarmness, heresy or in some cases outright rebellion towards official Church teachings by Canada’s Bishops has clearly left them susceptible to gross deception and manipulation by the devil.

“What a grievous time in our nation’s history when the most urgent and charitable work in Canada is to summon Catholic Bishops, the God given shepherds of our nation, to flee the wrath of God and return to the true faith.”

Labels: ,

Monday, December 10, 2007

Deadly Outcomes of Population Control Freaks

Here’s the Population Research Institute’s weekly report.


How Family Planning Programs Cause Sex-Selective Abortion, Female Infanticide, and Other Forms of Child Abuse.

by Steven Mosher and Colin Mason

The anti-natalists argue that population control (aka “family planning” programs) lowers infant mortality. Some of their arguments are very crude. It is true that, as the birth rate falls, fewer children are at risk of dying in their first few days, weeks, or months of life. But that is simply because there are fewer children altogether.

The most sophisticated argument of the anti-natalists touts the benefits of child spacing. The evidence shows that, in parts of the world where women and infant may not be well-nourished, survival rates of children who are spaced two or three years apart are generally higher than those who are born at shorter intervals. For this reason, they feel justified in encouraging, even coercing, women into contracepting for several years after the birth of a first child. They publicly claim to have lowered infant mortality, even as they privately congratulate themselves for having reduced the number of babies born.

But every policy intervention has unintended consequences. Before we credit the anti-natalists with reducing the death rate among infants, they must answer the charge that their programs have directly contributed to the rise of a new epidemic of female feticide and infanticide in Asia.

Agricultural societies place a high value on children, especially sons, who work as field laborers from a young age and provide economic security to their elderly parents. The economic value of children declines with industrialization, as the demands of education take children out of the home economy and pension programs provide substitute support in old age.

To embark upon fertility reduction campaigns in the absence of industrialization and pension programs, especially in the presence of a strong preference for sons, is to condemn large numbers of girl children to death in utero or after birth.

This can be seen most clearly in China, where the brutal and punitive one-child policy has been a death sentence for tens of million of girls and created a striking gender imbalance. In normal human populations about 106 baby boys are born for every 100 baby girls, a disparity that evens out over time as the boys suffer higher infant and child mortality rates. Since the early 1980s, however, the sex ratio at birth in China has climbed steadily higher, until today it stands at about 117 boys for every 100 girls.

Other countries with vigorous family planning programs in East and South Asia have also shown striking increases in the sex ratio as well.

The anti-natalists at the U.N. Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, along with the Chinese government itself, deny that this plague of “female feticide and infanticide” is in any way connected with their family planning programs, preferring to explain these practices as “manifestations of son preference and patriarchal structures which prevail across the region.”

Whatever modest reduction in infant mortality rates in East, Southeast, and South Asia the anti-natalists may properly take credit for, this hardly offsets the cost of condemning tens of millions of viable unborn baby girls to an untimely death.

Population control programs also contribute indirectly to maternal and infant mortality in other ways. In China and Vietnam, for example, heavy fines are levied on the families of “illegal” children, and the children themselves are denied residency, food rations, healthcare, and even schooling. Elements of such policies are found in South Korea, India, and other countries with rigorous family planning programs. By negatively impacting family finances and access to government health and other services, such punitive policies negatively affect the health of families which violate birth restrictions. Some women and children die as a consequence.

However loudly the UNFPA and other population control groups trumpet the slight reduction in maternal mortality that follows from their massive campaigns to prevent pregnancy, it is clear that this is merely a secondary effect of its primary goal: to reduce the number of babies born. But the young Third World women who die in childbirth for the most part want to be mothers. They just don’t want to perish as a result.

Poor people—and especially poor women—in developing nations often perceive the developed nations as fundamentally hostile to their way of life, an impression we reinforce when we inundate them with contraceptive devices and chemicals, or attempt to impose on them our laws governing sterilization and abortion.

This kind of cultural imperialism is evident in Hillary Clinton’s comment, offered at an 18 October 1997 meeting on the role of women in Buenos Aires, that “the only road to improve the life of women is the massive promotion of contraceptive methods.” The poor women of developing countries rightly translate this message to mean “We developed countries want you to have fewer children, or none at all, and we will not help you care for the children you already have.”

Decades after most of us became aware of, and sensitized to, the dangers of cultural imperialism, many controllers fail to appreciate the motivations and desires of individuals who may wish to have children. They not only ignore the pro-natal views of those upon whom they visit their programs, they positively scorn them. Whether they are trying to contracept or sterilize women directly, or educate and employ them out of hearth and home, they blithely dismiss the desire of some women to have children.

They take such a jaundiced view of childbearing that they are eager to trumpet its shortcomings, as the following quote from a family planning book: “Mothers are more likely to die in childbirth if they have large number of children; they will also spend a high proportion of their adult lives pregnant, breast-feeding, and providing childcare.” But what if women enjoy feeling a new life growing within them, enjoy the bonding experience of breastfeeding, and enjoy caring for their small children. What then? Then their views must be swept aside.

The controllers have long been antagonistic toward pregnancy, viewing programs to make childbearing safe as, in Margaret Sanger’s words, as “insidiously injurious,” and “a stupid cruelty.” Women and children are merely means to an end, to be used as a Trojan Horse for dramatically slowing, even reversing, population growth.

Labels: , ,

Friday, December 07, 2007

American Life League’s Video Report on Children's Sex Book

This news is somewhat old, more than a week old in fact. The media director for American Life League (ALL) has contacted us to ask whether the Vote Life, Canada! blogsite will post their new series of bi-weekly webcasts. This is their first video in this series and by now we know the video did make a big splash.

The ALL news release which accompanies the video appears below.

American Life League Releases Video Report on Children's Sex Book

WASHINGTON, D.C. · November 19, 2007 / PRNewswire / – "Parents need to know what Planned Parenthood has in store for their children and this report is an excellent starting point," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "The book 'It's Perfectly Normal' is obscene and offensive to Christians."

American Life League's second video report exposes the contents of the book "It's Perfectly Normal." Recently, a Washington State Prison rejected a fundraising letter that included censored images from the book for being "sexually explicit" and "obscene."

American Life League released the report as a part of its continuing effort to educate the public on Planned Parenthood's activities.

"This video report is just the beginning," said Sedlak. "We will continue to use this new media to expose the nation's largest abortion chain and we call on Christians across the nation to join us in putting a stop to tax payer funds for Planned Parenthood."

For the truth about Planned Parenthood, check out these related links:

Protect Your Children - exposing Planned Parenthood's war on childhood innocence

Sign our petition to end tax funding for Planned Parenthood

Get the Wednesday STOPP Report

Help us continue with these releases

Labels: , ,

Atheism and Apostasy Not the Right Road

In October past I announced that The Telegram, our province’s largest daily newspaper, had accepted me onto their Community Editorial Board, and at the same time I also posted my first editorial.

Here’s my second editorial, published in Wednesday’s paper.


Atheism and apostasy not the right road

Many people seem to think that the atheism of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is building great momentum. But can their philosophy be properly described as simply atheism? Or is it something much more sinister than merely denying God? To me it gives evidence of being oftentimes aggressively anti-Christian and anti-God. Shouldn’t it be better labeled as the spirit of anti-Christ? Is that too shocking and dramatic to say? I don’t think so but whatever it might

be called there is no doubt that a historically unique movement of people has been forming. Certainly these individuals disavow any connection to an oftentimes hypocritical and repugnant form of Christianity broken loose from its moorings in a post modern world. But again I ask whether what we are seeing is an expression of a fierce spirit of apostasy which has been breeding within the ranks of organized Christian bodies over long periods and which is now disguised as atheism.

Because atheism and apostasy pose grave threats to our well being as a society, I propose a review of some of the uncomplicated cultural distinctives throughout two millennia that have set the true Christian apart from the surrounding, and often godless, culture.

Maybe this review will prove helpful to the reader in assessing any question of apostasy and thereby any culpability in sustaining a post-modern “Christian” society overwhelmed by a culture of death. If so, it might count as a service to the soul since, I assume, we all wish to avoid the “terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” [Hebrews 10:27], a reference to the future, and personal, encounter with God by all those who forsake Him.

In particular, those who shepherd the flock of God and who are sharply warned by Scripture against leading God’s little ones astray are urged to seriously consider this review. I suggest that the following historic Christian distinctives ought to urgently and intently preoccupy us.

  1. Evangelizing society with unassailable drive. Preach Jesus Christ as the only way to be reconciled to God.
  2. Viewing earthly life as a temporary residence. All thought and action must be accounted for and is a preparation for heaven to come. Choosing against Christ is choosing separation from God forever in hell.
  3. Christians the most generous of people, giving up possessions, talents and even their lives for God and neighbour. Unparalleled hospitality and radical relief of the poor and the sick.
  4. Christians bestowing great dignity, love and justice upon even the lowliest sinner, criminal or slave. Unequivocal opposition to abortion and infanticide.
  5. Christians, the servants of all, ministering to others as unto Christ Himself. This revolutionized Christian leadership as well as the world of business and politics.
  6. Christian marriage and the family replacing the State as the cornerstone of a new civilization. No sex outside marriage. All sexual activity, both heterosexual and otherwise, aimed at circumventing procreation constitutes a perversion of God’s order and an abomination. Strictly practiced by all Christians until first defied in the 1930’s by the Anglicans who sought exemption for birth control. Marriage and the family have not since recovered. Neither have the Anglicans, nor every Christian body which followed them, nor society in general.

Clearly we have strayed from the path. With courage we must return.

Labels: ,