Facing up to the Horror of Abortion

A friend of mine sat across the desk from me yesterday, excitedly describing what he had learned about the development of his unborn child (15 weeks gestation). He's already a very active baby, moving around in his mother's womb. His loving parents look forward to seeing him as he is revealed to the world in another five months or so.

Contrast that picture with the reality of what is happening in abortion clinics and hospitals around Canada. Even more disconcerting, a few articles have surfaced recently that have, once again, shed light on what has become our society's dirty little secrets - "after-birth abortion" and "gendercide" - and the mainstream media's extreme bias against the pro-life movement.

Let's start with Canada, where columnist Warren Kinsella came out with gun's ablazing against Canadian parliamentarians who dared to put forward a motion asking the House of Commons to condemn the practice that sees female fetuses aborted for the sole reason that they are female. He dismissed the motion as an attempt by backbench parliamentarians to get their name in the headlines and to bring the abortion debate in the back door. Other liberal commentators said the same thing when MP Stephen Woodworth put forward a motion calling for a review of Canada's 400 year old law defining "human beings."

The bottom line with Kinsella and others seems to be that we're not allowed to talk about abortion or changing the law - ever! In their minds the issue has been resolved, not only for them, but for all of us. How dare we keep trying to bring it back up for debate! He resorted to name-calling, declaring them to be "dishonest," "nobodies" and "pipsqueaks." And, of course, he threw in the tried and true pro-abortion rant that they are trying "to move the country back to the bad old days, when the only choice women had were coat hangers in back alleys."

Of course, none of this hyperbole actually dealt with the hard truth that, in Canada, an increasing number of women are now aborting their babies simply because they are girls. The American news outlet, The Economist, ran an article entitled "Gendercide in Canada," detailing skewed birth rates in portions of the population whose country of origin was in the Far East (where sex-selective abortion is rampant). This evidence has lead to calls on the banning of revealing the sex of an unborn child until 30 weeks gestation.

This is all simply a side story to the truth that there has been NO LIMIT ON ABORTION in Canada. It is repugnant that our government(s) lack the courage to take a good, hard look at the evidence and protect those most innocent members of society.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the major media outlets are right now bringing shame on themselves by completely ignoring the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor in Philadelphia. Gosnell is charged with killing seven babies who were born alive, and testimony has revealed there were hundreds of others. He`s also charged with the death of a woman under his care in his abortion clinic. According to FoxNews.com, neither NBC nor ABC have carried any news on this story. CBS has not covered the trial and CNN has almost completely ignored it. They were even critical of Fox News for its limited coverage.

Perhaps the reason is that the details coming out of this are so horrific that people don`t want to know - crying babies killed with scissors, etc... It is revealing the ugly reality that the abortion industry doesn`t want people to know: every abortion stops a beating heart. These children are alive - they move away from the instruments that are trying to kill them. Their only crime is not being wanted.

If this is enough reason for someone to kill an unborn baby, then it makes sense that Alisa LaPolt Snow, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, defends "after-birth abortion" (the killing of a child born alive after a failed abortion). This is exactly the crime for which Gosnell is on trial, and Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion supplier in the U.S., is defending infanticide by saying, "the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor."

We need to light up the blogosphere and let people know what is actually happening. As I post these and similar stories I get replies like "hideous," "heartless," "awful," and "monstrous." Yes it is, and it must stop! 

Related Articles:
What is a "wrongful birth?"
Can We Talk? I Guess Not.
When is Killing Your Baby Okay?
Why the abortion issue won't go away



  

Motion 312: Point - Counterpoint

It was Thomas Edison who said: “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”I think we need to change that.

I enjoy all kinds of different news outlets: magazines, television, radio, the web. I even like a good civil debate every once in a while. I also like to read from different perspectives, if only to try to understand people better. I have found, however, that a great many people only get one side of the story. In light of that, I decided to start something a little different on my blog, something I'll call "Point - Counterpoint." 

In these blogs I will post links to articles on the same subject from 2 or 3 different perspectives. Please note that I do not necessarily endorse the articles presented. (If I endorsed all of these divergent opinions I'd be worried for my mental health.) What I would like to do is to try to give you a sampling of the writing from a broad spectrum of viewpoints.  

The first subject will be the distinctively Canadian brouhaha over Bill 312, recently defeated in the House of Commons. This has been the matter of a great deal of debate in Canada, much of it from people with no idea what the Bill says, or what the law currently states. So we'll begin with a presentation of the Bill itself. Here it is in its entirety:  

"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

      (i)            what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

   (ii)            is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

 (iii)            what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

 (iv)            what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?"  

The following are three articles written from different perspectives. 

The first is by Heather Mallick of the Toronto Star: Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney wants MPs to decide when human life begins

The second is by Monte Solberg of the Toronto Sun: A discussion we cannot discuss. 

The third is by Monique David of the National Post: 

Quebec media toes the pro-abortion line in denouncing Ambrose

Full disclosure: I have strong opinions on this subject and have written on the topic a number of times. Your opinions are welcome.

Related Articles:
Motion 312 and the Quest for Justice 
Why the abortion issue won't go away 
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
No Justice in Canada for the Unborn
 

Motion 312 and the Quest for Justice

Last week my wife and I spent two days in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, visiting the battlefield where the greatest battle of the American Civil War was fought and where President Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address. We then spent two days touring the monuments of Washington D.C., including the Lincoln Memorial and the Holocaust Museum. Both stops on our trip provided their share of moving experiences and gave us a glimpse into a different time, but one with similar challenges.

As I read the Gettysburg Address my mind was drawn to what I view as the greatest injustice of our time. In Lincoln's day it was the slave trade. In our day it is the abortion industry. What would a Canadian Lincoln say today? I can't say for sure, but here's my best attempt.

In 1867 our fathers constituted a new nation on this continent - the Dominion of Canada. Psalm 72:8 was selected as a verse from which the name of the new country would be derived. Referring to a future Messianic king, Solomon wrote “He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” (Psalm 72:8) Our nation was founded by people of faith, who recognized God as the source of life, and the giver of freedom.

In 1982, as our nation established a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, included prominently among those rights was that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person..." Canadian men and women have laid down their lives to defend these rights, and to build a nation that has been known as a bastion of freedom and peace. Yet, in the midst of our peace-keeping and our defense of freedom we hear a barely audible cry from one segment of our society which has been denied those same rights which we all hold sacred.

Every year in Canada more than 100,000 people meet their demise at the hands of medical professionals who took an oath to do no harm. These human beings have no voice to defend themselves. With the inability to speak for themselves, they have even been stripped of their status as human beings, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Every effort to speak our on their behalf is met by extreme opposition by those who ought to be raising their voices to protect rather than destroy. As a nation, we have chosen to turn a blind eye to the plight of these multiplied thousands. Where are our leaders with the courage of their convictions?

In the heat of wartime, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that all American slaves would be "thenceforward and forever free." The moment had arrived for stating the obvious: among other issues, the Civil War was about the freedom of a people from the tyranny of slavery. Lincoln was the lightning rod for all of those who benefited from this obscene practice. We look back and shake our heads that anyone could have believed that it was their "right" to keep another human being as a slave.

It is my firm belief that we will look back, not many years from now, and hang our heads in shame that we allowed the despicable practice of abortion. We are at the place in our culture today that we cannot even have a civil discussion. In our popular media we don't refer to them as babies, they are human embryos or fetuses. We only call them babies when the mother wants them. A few years ago they were blobs of cells, but advancements in science have put the lie to that line of reasoning. Yet the truth is hidden from the public consciousness. A large percentage of Canadians actually believe that there is a law restricting abortion in Canada! We have been without one since 1982 - the only civilized country in the world with that distinction. 

While researching this article I searched for abortion methods in Canada and came across this site: http://www.abortionincanada.ca/methods/index.html  The clinical language used conceals the fact that living human beings are usually torn limb from limb as they are being suctioned from their mother's womb. This is the case for some 90% of abortions in Canada. The realities of abortion are far from clinical, and almost always stops a beating heart. 

M.P. Stephen Woodworth

Shamefully, none of the major political parties in Canada have leadership that will speak out in favor of the protection of the unborn. In fact Prime Minister Stephen Harper, (yes, the one that many media claim has a secret agenda to outlaw abortion) has spoken out against Motion 312, a Private Members Bill by one of his own Members of Parliament, Stephen Woodworth. He has also publicly stated that this bill will not be supported by the government, assuring its demise. What is the purpose of the Bill? To review the section of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. It is a 400 year old law based on 400 year old science! Yet the entrenchment of abortion rights are so concretized that we cannot even have a discussion about the obvious.

How long will it be until people are willing to open their eyes, and what will it take to create the moral will to right this horrible wrong? If you are a student of history, you are aware that many cultures have sacrificed their children to their idols in order to curry favour in the form of good crops or protection in battle. We marvel at their ignorance and their cruelty. Yet our "modern civilization" has continued this practice by sacrificing our children on the altar of convenience and pragmatism. May God have mercy on us.

Related Articles:
Can We Talk? I Guess Not.
Conservatives Turn on Their Own
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
Why the abortion issue won't go away
Heads In The Sand




  

Conservatives Turn on Their Own

MP Stephen Woodworth

Stephen Woodworth is a backbench Conservative member of Canada's parliament. He recently put forward a private-member's bill that calls for a committee to be struck to  review Canada's 400 year old law defining when a baby is considered a human being. The current law states that a child is not human until he or she emerges fully alive from his or her mother's womb.

The opposition from the Liberals and the NDP was to be expected, but the vitriol from his own party whip is another thing entirely. Rather than me restating what has already been stated so well, I will simply post a link to this well-written article by Ottawa Citizen reporter David Warren. I hope it makes you think. Here's the link.

I decided to add the video below for your information. It's long (about 35 minutes), but gives a lot of information for anyone who really wants to know the facts. One of my greatest frustrations is that the vast majority of Canadians are unaware of the fact that there is no law protecting unborn children in Canada whatsoever. While most Canadians say they don't want the abortion debate re-opened, that's because most do believe the unborn have some protection. Over 70% of Canadians believe that there should be at least some limits on abortion. The video below has MP Stephen Woodworth presenting his own argument for your consideration.



Related Articles:
No Justice in Canada for the Unborn
Heads In The Sand
Why the abortion issue won't go away
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
Can We Talk? I Guess Not.

No Justice in Canada for the Unborn

Yesterday in Ottawa, 15,000+ Canadians rallied at Parliament Hill against Canada's lack of an abortion law. You likely won't hear much of this elsewhere. The event is largely ignored by most media outlets. Remarkably, Canada is the only developed nation in the world without a law restricting abortion.

The mantra continues to be repeated by the mainstream media that the issue is closed and Canadians don't want to reopen the abortion debate. In my opinion, Canadians are ignorant to the facts and are unaware that there are virtually no limits on abortion in the country. See link. What this means is that a child can be legally killed with it's body halfway out of the birth canal. I have yet to meet anyone who believes that this is just, yet this is the law. In fact, according to Angus Reid, 40% of Canadians believe that abortion is restricted after 3 months gestation. How can we have closed debate when many are not even aware of the basic facts?

Recently, backbench MP Stephen Woodworth put forward a motion to review the countries archaic 400 year old law that states that a child is not human until it proceeds fully alive from its mother's womb. Sadly, our Conservative? Prime Minister responded that he was disappointed that it made it to the floor; that he would be voting against it and that he would not allow the bill to pass. The  most defenseless in our society have no-one with any power who is willing to stand up and speak for them.

The battle for pro-lifers seems to be an uphill one. Pro-life groups are shut out of many Canadian university campuses (those bastions of free speech); pro-life ads often become the subject of lawsuits, and any politician who sticks his head up to even look like they support the pro-life position is immediately targeted. Witness the CBC reaction story to the Ottawa mayor proclaiming May 11 to be Respect For Life Day as just one example.

What many don't realize is that this issue is only symptomatic of a much larger issue. The devaluing of human life is justified in the name of women's rights, yet it has resulted in, what has been called, "gendercide" - the aborting of fetuses simply because they are girls. It has now become common practice for women from China, India and other eastern nations to come to Canada to have abortions once it's determined they are carrying a girl. On what basis do we criticize them?

A story just broke last week from South Korea of the seizure of thousands of tablets containing the powdered remains of human fetuses. These were intended for use by people who believe they have medicinal value. According to the Korea Customs Service, the bodies of dead babies are chopped into small pieces and dried on stoves before being turned into powder. Many among the academic elite of North America have applauded China's one-child policy - the reality is not so pretty is it? Revealingly, this story has barely caused a ripple. Does it matter?

When we devalue life - any life - it devalues us all. I still hear people say things like "mind your own business," or "get your hands off my ovaries." Is it really that simple? Ordinary Germans were told by the Nazis to mind their own business, as well, when their neighbors were rounded up and taken to concentration camps. The roundup occurred after a sustained campaign declaring these people groups as sub-human or "untermensch."

The question to be answered is still when does human life begin? Surely, in a civilized society, we can agree that it at least begins when a baby is viable outside of his or her mother's womb. Britain has restricted abortion after 24 weeks, France after 12. Only in Canada, among developed nations, is there absolutely no restrictions. It's long past time for a change. If the subject makes you uncomfortable, get over it, this discussion needs to take place.

Related Articles:
Heads In The Sand
Why the abortion issue won't go away
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look
Can We Talk? I Guess Not.
When is Killing Your Baby Okay?
What is a "wrongful birth?"

Can We Talk? I Guess Not.

This is yet another piece on the subject of the rights of the unborn child. I wasn't planning on writing this today, but came across a great article that was published in the National Post. It's about Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative backbench MP from Kitchener, who somehow won approval for an hour of debate before a committee of MP's. It's the subject of the debate that is sure to raise eyebrows and create a firestorm of opposition.

The subject is Canada’s 400-year-old law defining human beings. Woodworth's premise is very simple: science and technology have advanced greatly since the 1600's and our laws ought to do the same. It's the implications of this process that will attract all of the attention.

Currently, in Canadian law, a fetus is not considered a "human being" until "the moment of complete birth." That fact is lost on most Canadians, who aren't even aware that there is virtually no protection for the unborn child.

If you read the comments already piling up at the bottom of this article you can get a taste of what lies ahead. One pro-abortion advocate called unborn babies "parasites." Another suggested that, of course, unborn babies are "human," but that does not mean that they should have legal protection under the law because they are not "persons."

Semantics. This will become a war about words, when what it's really about is innocent life. The writer of the article made a great point when he said, "It’s diabolical. An arrow straight at the deliberate self-deceptions used to justify abortion." Self-deception is a great term for it. A great number of people are willfully ignorant of this entire subject matter. They don't want to think about it and they certainly don't want to talk about it. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is deathly afraid of this issue and I would be shocked if he allows this debate to move forward. I hope he proves me wrong.

For the record, here are the four questions Woodworth would like a special committee to examine:

(i) What medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,
(ii) Is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,
(iii) What are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,
(iv) What are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

It sounds reasonable to me. What reasonable person could object to these questions? The problem is, some are unwilling to follow where the truth leads; they'd rather continue to deny the obvious truth that abortion stops a beating heart. Let's put our hands over our ears and yell really loudly so we can't hear.

It reminds me of a story I heard about a church in Germany during World War II. Here's one man's true story:

"I lived in Germany during the Nazi holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. I attended church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews, but like most people today in this country, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?

"A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews. They were like cattle in those cars!

"Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns.

"By the time that train came rumbling past the church yard, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more. Years have passed and no one talks about it much anymore, but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.

"Their screams tormented us . . . If some of their screams reached our ears we'd just sing a little louder."

We have to decide to listen, and to act. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." The word coming out of the Justice Department is as expected. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson provided the following statement: “We have always been clear, our Government has no intention to reopen this debate.” Come on Mr. Harper, who knows, maybe this could be your defining moment.

Related Articles:
What is a "wrongful birth?"
When is Killing Your Baby Okay?
Canada’s Feds Paying Full Maternity Benefits After Abortion
An Open Letter To Stephen Harper
Canada's Shame

What is a "wrongful birth?"

Meanwhile in the wacky world of abortion rights.... now we have a couple in Portland, Oregon who were just awarded $2.9 million in a "wrongful birth" lawsuit. Yes, that's right, wrongful birth.

They had pre-screening done and the results stated that the child was normal. They say that if they had known she had Down Syndrome they would have aborted her. Thus - wrongful birth.

The family's lawyer tells us that this is a very difficult time for the family and that they love the child very much - the $2.9 is ostensibly to provide for the extra expenses that a child with Down Syndrome would apparently cost over the course of their life.

I don't know how high-functioning this little girl is, but could you imagine the discussion if she ever becomes aware of this case. This is one of those crazy stories that is bound to find its way to a reality show or movie screen near you.

I know the temptation is to laugh this off as an extreme case of people, including a judge, who have lost their common sense, but this case is reflective of what is happening on many different levels in our culture. This has everything to do with rights and responsibilities. Not to ention the fact that some 90% of pregnancies of Down Syndrome children end in abortion.

We live in an age of individual rights, not basic rights, mind you, like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" kind of rights. I have no issue with those foundational cornerstones of Western Civilization. No, now we're talking about the "right" to have the perfect baby. We see in this case what happens when this artificial "right" is enforced.

What people don't understand is that every time a "right" is granted, a corresponding responsibility is created. If you have a right to have a child that is born without defect, someone, in this case the lab, has the responsibility to see that it happens. If you have a "right" to have an abortion, someone has the responsibility to provide that for you as well.

So now we have the debate over whether or not the freedom of conscience is trumped by the freedom of choice. Should a pro-life nurse be forced to participate in an abortion? If not,what if we don't have enough people willing to participate? Does that right go away? Should it be a right after all?

Even more importantly, what happens when right claims conflict? Shouldn't the right to life trump all other rights? Should the children who survive abortion attempts (and some do), be able to sue their parents and doctors for attempted murder and any physical injuries resulting?

The problem is that we've stopped using our brains and we're allowing our emotions to rule us. We're allowing artificial rights to be granted based upon our changing preferences, rather than referring back to the source. I do appreciate what the founding fathers of the United States wrote in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The fact that this is self-evident indicates that it's not a uniquely American concept, but is for all mankind. What are those unalienable rights that God has endowed us with? One thing I know for sure, it doesn't include the right to kill the weakest among us.

I've included a short video below that I thought you might find interesting.

Related Articles:

When is Killing Your Baby Okay?

"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look
Why the abortion issue won't go away
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
Tim Tebow Mania

Why the abortion issue won't go away

I just finished reading an article by R. Albert Mohler Jr. on CNN's Belief Blog called "My Take: Why the abortion issue won’t go away." This was a uniquely American perspective but, as in many other issues, there is a great deal of crossover. I wanted to look at the same issue from a Canadian perspective.

If you're a regular reader of this blog you'll note that I write on the topic of abortion fairly often. I do that for the same reason that many other Canadians bring up the subject. I believe that abortion is the moral issue of our time. Other generations have had to deal with slavery, suffrage and civil rights, among other issues. In my view there is no moral issue that takes precedence over the right to life.

Since abortion was first de-criminalized in Canada in 1969, there have been over 3,000,000 abortions in Canada. Once all restrictions to abortion were removed in 1988, abortion jumped 29%. Just to clarify, in Canada there is currently no protection for a child in the womb, regardless of length of term. This was confirmed in 1991 by the Supreme Court of Canada when a full-term child whose head was outside of the birth canal was ruled not a "person" by law. Most Canadians I speak with are unaware of this reality.

Let's examine some of the reasons why this won't go away in Canada. Some of these reasons mirror the American situation, some differ.

It won't go away because the legal position in Canada is so extreme. As stated above, there is virtually no protection for a child in the womb. For those who value life this is simply untenable. More than thirty years of surveys have demonstrated that the majority of Canadians want some limit to abortion. Yet, there is no political will to address the issue. In fact, it is widely believed that to bring up the "A" word in terms of a pro-life position would be the death knell for a candidate. So the subject continues to be the subject of debate by pro-lifers while pro-choicers do their best to stifle those voices.

It won't go away because there are people on either side who are firmly entrenched in their position. As Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Feminist organizations have viewed the issue of abortion rights as fundamental to the rights of women, and therefore it is a non-negotiable. They will therefore fight any effort to limit abortion whatsoever, not wanting to allow a foot in the door. Women's Studies programs in Canadian Universities are notorious for their pro-abortion slant.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church and Canadian Evangelicals, among others, are equally determined to see Canada come to the defense of the unborn. Because their stance is rooted in their firm belief that the fetus is a human being and that life begins at conception, expecting them to change their mind is naive in the extreme.

It won't go away because the Canadian media, by and large, refuses to allow the issue to be brought to the forefront. This has resulted in a great deal of frustration, particularly among pro-lifers who feel as though their views are virtually ignored if not mis-represented. Every election we are reminded by some columnist or news anchor that the abortion issue is a closed debate and that the Canadian public doesn't want it re-opened. This only serves to wave a red flag in the faces of pro-lifers. What has resulted is an entrenchment whereby pro-lifers have created their own newspapers, on-line news sources, and women's organizations in order to allow their views to be heard. The growth in social media has also allowed for a more direct approach in getting the word out.

It won't go away because advancements in science and technology have radically changed what we know about life in the womb. Destroyed is the myth that an unborn baby is simply a blob of cells. Just before writing this article I saw a friend's Facebook post of a 3D image of their child "in utero." They have already named their baby and are commenting on how much he looks like his father. Yet we are still aborting babies of the same gestation in Canada.

Beyond that, now that we have the technology to determine sex earlier in the pregnancy, we see that women are aborting babies based solely on sex. The issues become more and more complicated as feminists now must either defend "gendercide" or come out against some abortions. But if abortion is wrong because it's a girl, how can it be okay if it's a boy? A baby is a baby is a baby.

It won't go away because pro-lifers recognize, as feared, that abortion was only the thin edge of the wedge. In other words, once we have succeeded in de-humanizing unborn babies, a lack of respect for life in general follows. Debates regarding euthanasia and what to do with babies who survive abortion create the belief that social engineers will continue to push an even more extreme agenda.

This is an uncomfortable issue to be sure. It's not comfortable table talk. It's not even a popular subject on this blog. But I will continue to write about it because it's an issue which deserves serious consideration. I truly long for intelligent debate on this issue. I have not heard, recently, a well thought out pro-choice position, but rather the shrill cry to "shut up!" Well, that won't happen. The issue will not be going away any time soon.

Related Articles:
The War on Women
Words of Death: "It's A Girl!"
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
The Wonder of Life
Losing Our Way

The War on Women

One of the biggest stories in the news lately has been the trial and conviction of the Shafia family for "Honour killings." Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and their son Hamed Mohammad Shafia killed Mohammed's other wife, (Mohammed was a polygamist) Rona and three daughters, Zainab, Sahar and Geeti, just 19, 17 and 13 years old, ostensibly because they "shamed" the family. They are pictured below.

This case has rightly enraged people worldwide and drawn attention to the plight of women living in repressive cultures all over the world. In places like Afghanistan, former home of the Shafias, fundamentalist Muslims have used the Koran as an excuse to treat women as property. Because of this view, women who disobey are viewed to be disrespectful and, therefore, bring shame to the family. In the minds of Mohammed Shafia, the only way to restore the honour to the family name is to kill the offending women.

Thankfully, the Canadian court made a clear and emphatic statement that this hate, masquerading in religious garb, will not be tolerated here. All three accused were convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for twenty five years. The very clear and direct message from the judge and jury was that the lives of women are valued in Canada. This judgement should make us all proud.

That being said, I can't help but find the irony here. Just two weeks ago I wrote an article about the emerging trend for women to come to Canada in order to find out the sex of their baby so that they can abort their female children. The National Post did a feature on this on January 16th. Just last week I linked to the just produced film called "It's A Girl!" detailing the gendercide that's taking place around the world as baby girls, born and unborn, are killed automatically -simply for being girls.

Doesn't anyone else find it at least a little bit hypocritical that we, as a society, are turning a blind eye to the killing of baby girls in the womb on our own soil while vilifying the Shafias? They're obviously guilty of a heinous crime - it seems that popular opinion is unanimous on that. But I'm also outraged that the Government of China, with its one child policy, is complicit in the deaths of millions of live born baby girls. I'm outraged that, in India, it's a cultural norm to murder a baby girl so the parents won't have to come up with money for a dowry later. I'm also outraged that we're doing the same thing in Canada - just a few weeks earlier, because the child will make our lives more difficult.

Here's my question, where are the feminist groups? Why are their voices silent on this? These are baby girls who need protection, but it seems that women's rights groups are so afraid of losing ground on the abortion issue that they remain silent in the face of injustice. I know this is not a popular issue, but it is not going away. The fact that Canada has no abortion law will continue to be a stain on our country's reputation. I hear no cogent defense of this pro-abortion position, only the shrill cry to stop talking about it, and the claim that no-one wants to re-open the debate. Cowardice on our part can only lead to disaster for those who can't defend themselves.

The Shafias deserve the punishment they will receive; their crime was horrific. These four women reached out for help to school officials, police and even a women's shelter. For some reason (some claim because they were Muslim) these cries for help went unheeded. The inaction eventually led to their deaths. The voices of millions of girls worldwide are crying out for justice. Get past your bias and speak up.

Related Articles:
Words of Death: "It's A Girl!"
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
The Wonder of Life
Tim Tebow Mania
Losing Our Way
Canada's Shame

Words of Death: "It's A Girl!"

In the early years of the church, Christians would gather babies who were unwanted and left to die by their mothers beside open sewers, and raise them as their own. They cared for those no-one else would touch. They took seriously what the writer of Proverbs said in Proverbs 24:11 - "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter." We need that kind of compassion again on a broad scale.

The following is the official trailer for a Documentary Film called "It's A Girl" detailing the horrendous "gendercide" taking place, primarily in Asia. Most of you will be shocked by what you will hear, and all of us should be horrified.

Many years ago we were ridiculed for suggesting that not only was abortion wrong, but that it was also a slippery slope that would result in the dehumanizing of entire groups of people for selfish purposes. It's happened. I share this to inform and to try to change some minds. We must value human life. We must speak for those who can't speak for themselves.

The degree of violence that is happening in our world today towards girls actually dwarfs the holocaust! Hitler and the Nazis justified their actions by claiming that their victims were sub-human. The same argument is being used today about babies in the womb. Unbelievably, in many countries, baby girls are killed the moment that they are born, often by their own mothers. While this practice dates back centuries and is deeply rooted in some cultures, we are supposedly living in an advanced age. Yet there is still a culture of death which must be reversed.

Please watch this video, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Then share it. There are 42 million abortions worldwide per year. Add to that the number of born live baby girls murdered and, somehow, it gets even worse. When you have opportunity to make a difference with your voice or with your ballot, for the children's sake, do it.

"How can you say there are too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers." - Mother Teresa



Related Articles:
Canada Now an Abortion Destination
The Wonder of Life
Tim Tebow Mania
Losing Our Way
Canada's Shame

Canada Now an Abortion Destination

For anyone still thinking that it's okay to kill children in the womb, here's a question, where should you draw the line? In the article I've linked to below they explain that foreign nationals are using Canada as the place to come to if you want to abort your baby for being a girl.

The combination of our advanced technology and our lack of an abortion law has created the perfect storm. Throughout Asia it's long been known that many practice feticide on baby girls in the womb because they prefer boys. Congratulations Canada! We make that possible.

This development creates a real conundrum for the pro-choice movement, many of whom are feminist. Is it okay for a woman to choose to abort her child simply because that child is a girl? If not, why not? The bottom line in all of this is that it demonstrates that we've hit the bottom of the slippery slope we've been warned about for many years.

We seriously need to reconsider this national disgrace. When children can be aborted in one wing of a hospital and even younger children can be operated on "in utero" in another wing of that same hospital, based solely on whether or not the mother wants the child, we have a major problem. That is schizophrenic thinking. If it's a baby, it's a baby.

By the way, we've never settled this debate, as the media keeps declaring, we've short-circuited it. The majority of Canadians, in survey after survey, want limits placed on abortion. As Mother Teresa said, "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” When people are coming to Canada for sex-selection tests, only to have an abortion if it's a girl, we have to take a good long look in the mirror and WAKE UP!

Read the full article here.

Related Articles:
The Wonder of Life
Losing Our Way
Canada’s Feds Paying Full Maternity Benefits After Abortion
An Open Letter To Stephen Harper
Canada's Shame

Losing Our Way

In the last couple of weeks there have been two news stories, not widely reported, that have struck me because of what they say about us as a culture. Since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canada has not had an abortion law, meaning that it is legal to kill a child in the womb up until the moment the baby emerges live from its mother's womb. Of course this scenario doesn't happen often, but the fact that it can happen at all is a sad commentary that respect for human life doesn't rank very high on our list of priorities.

I'm speaking to this today because I think that we, as a culture, have become so apathetic that we no longer care to speak up in the face of outrageous legislative and judicial decisions. If the unborn could speak, I wonder if they would echo the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

I believe that much of the reason that many remain silent, in spite of the fact that study after study shows that a majority of Canadians want at least some protection of the unborn, (see example)is a combination of a strident pro-abortion minority and a cowardly parliament. Every election we hear the worn out refrain that "the abortion issue is settled" and "Canadians aren't interested in re-opening the debate." The truth is stifled and our unborn children continue to die at the rate of 100,000+ each year (roughly the population of the city of Guelph every year). The articles I'm linking to below are indicative of the cultural malaise into which we have stumbled.

The first article I want to draw your attention to is by Patrick Craine which reveals that Canada is providing maternity benefits to women who choose to have an abortion. For a woman who waits until her child is at 19 weeks gestation she will receive the full 17 weeks coverage that a mother who allows her child to live will receive. This in spite of the fact that the benefit was designed to enable a mother to stay at home and care for her child. Canadians then, are not only required to pay for a woman to abort her child, we are also then required to pay so that she can sit at home for 3 and a half months. Read the full article here.

The second article is by far more disturbing because it actually moves the line of tolerance from abortion to infanticide. In this story, again by Patrick Craine, we read of an Edmonton woman who was found guilty of strangling her newborn baby. When it came to sentencing, Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decided that no jail time was necessary and that justice would be served by giving a 3 year suspended sentence. In other words, for murdering her own child, this woman would spend no time in jail.

The judge's decision was based on the fact that Canada does not have an abortion law and, therefore, has more concern for the mother than the child. The horrible reality is that, in this judge's mind, the life of this child did not matter. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." If this is true, I fear for our country. Read the full article here.

Related Articles:
An Open Letter To Stephen Harper
Canada's Shame
Unsung Heroes - Linda Gibbons
The "A" Word

Canada’s Feds Paying Full Maternity Benefits After Abortion

This is a reprint of an article by Patrick B. Craine,
Fri Sep 02, 2011 14:39 EST. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, surely we can all agree that this is absolutely ludicrous.

OTTAWA, Ontario, September 2, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life Canadians have complained for years that they are forced to pay for the direct killing of unborn children through the country’s health system. It turns out they are also paying for abortive mothers to get full maternity benefits.

Canada’s employment insurance guidelines reveal that a woman who aborts her child after 19 weeks gestation is eligible to receive 17 weeks of maternity leave, the same as a mother who gives birth. For an abortion occurring before 19 weeks gestation, the woman can collect sick leave for the same length of time.

“The whole situation is pretty ludicrous,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer for Campaign Life Coalition. “Why should you pay for somebody killing their child, and then expect to pay for benefits if the child is no longer there?”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation first highlighted this federal policy in 2008. John Williamson, CTF’s executive director, told The Interim that maternity benefits were established by an Act of Parliament with the intention of allowing parents bonding time with their newborn child.

He said extending these benefits to a woman who aborted her child is “obscene” and a “perversion of the EI system.”

Campagne Quebec-Vie, the Quebec division of Campaign Life Coalition, has recently highlighted that women are also given maternity benefits under the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan.

“How is it fair that I am being asked, along with other taxpayers of good will, to not only pay for the assassination of a ‘less than perfect’ child, but that I am also paying for several months’ ‘maternity leave’?” asked Georges Buscemi, CQV’s president.

Buscemi warned Americans that they could be facing similar policies if President Barack Obama, the country’s most pro-abortion head-of-state in history, is elected a second time. “Not only is this the kind of nonsense that greatly in-debts states, these socialist policies are nothing but a kind of barbarism hidden under a cloak of charity and compassion. These kinds of policies are both expensive and evil,” said Buscemi.

Federal government regulations note that a woman who obtained an abortion would not be eligible for parental leave, which is above and beyond maternity leave, “since the employee must have actual care and custody of a newborn child.”

Douglas said abortion is not a “maternal” act and so should not warrant any maternity benefits. “Families are not taking care of their children if they’re eliminating them,” she said. “That’s not caring for children, that’s eliminating children. So it’s not worthy of benefits for sure.”

LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back from the office of Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Diane Finley by press time.


Contact Information:

Hon. Diane Finley
Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 996-4974
Fax: (613) 996-9749
E-mail: diane.finley@parl.gc.ca

Related Articles:
An Open Letter To Stephen Harper
Canada's Shame
The "A" Word
Unborn Victims of Crime Act

Unsung Heroes - Linda Gibbons

It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

If that is indeed the case, then Linda Gibbons has demonstrated that she has no peers in Canada. This 63 year old great-grandmother will soon have spent more time behind bars than Karla Homolka and many other convicted murderers. Her crime? Silently praying within sixty feet of a Morgantaler abortion clinic in Toronto. She actually at times has had the nerve to hold a sign asking "Why Mom, when I have so much life to give?" For this she is treated like a common criminal.

Linda is now behind bars awaiting her appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Over the past 17 years, she's spent almost 9 years in a prison cell, and has been incarcerated for the last 26 months. She could be released today if she would agree not to protest near the clinics. She refuses to agree to these conditions on principle, believing that the demand is a contravention of her freedom of expression.

So while in prison Linda provides counsel to the younger women she calls "her girls," trying to help them break out of patterns of drug abuse and life on the streets. She is proud of the fact that she has saved three babies from abortion while on the inside. Speaking to an interviewer she said: “Wherever I am, I am free to do God’s work. I can be on the outside or in the inside. It doesn’t matter. I don’t feel burdened by what I’m doing.” (For the full article go here.)

It seems that our legal system really doesn't know what to do with Linda precisely because she has the courage of her convictions. The supposed issue at hand is a "temporary injunction" which was put in place in 1994. Ummm, at what point does that become permanent? Our judicial system doesn't seem to want that issue before the courts so they are charging her with everything except contravening that injunction. She's been charged with "obstructing a peace officer," and "disobeying a court order." These charges allow the courts to not deal with the question of the merits of the temporary injunction. So Linda stays.

Why is she so passionate? Others have taken the same stand as she has, yet took the opportunity for release when offered. “I didn’t have the courage to break the injunction,” says retired high school teacher John Bulsza, of London, Ont., who was named in the original injunction in August 1994. “Everyone of us should have protested with her and this case would be history. She’s our Gandhi and we’re letting her take the fall for the rest of us.”
Linda herself had an abortion when she was a young woman and doesn't want anyone to have to deal with that. She also was born with a cleft palate and underwent successful surgery as a child. She wonders, with the advanced pre-natal testing as advanced as it is today if she might not have been aborted if born later. So she stands in defense of the unborn at every opportunity. She doesn't fight, she doesn't yell. She doesn't threaten, harass or argue. She simply bears silent witness to what she feels is the genocide of millions of Canadian babies. Her lawyer believes that she is a "prisoner of conscience." Others are not so impressed, believing that Linda is getting her just desserts for thumbing her nose at the law.

When thinking of Linda's plight, I can't help but draw comparisons to Martin Luther King, Jr., with whose quote I opened this piece. Some may not think the comparison appropriate, but that would depend on your view of the rights of the unborn, I suppose. When King was imprisoned, the rights of blacks weren't recognized by everyone either. He stood against what he felt were unjust laws, willingly paying the price for finding himself on the wrong side of, what he considered to be, unjust laws. One of the obvious differences is that Linda is not a dynamic leader with a national profile like King was. She does not have the speaking or writing ability which allowed him to clearly articulate his position. Linda quietly lives out her beliefs, for her it seems there is no other option.

At the time of this writing, the case has been adjourned to April 12. It will be interesting to see if the top court of our land is comfortable allowing a 63 year old great-grandmother to be held indefinitely behind bars for breaking a temporary injunction put in place way back when Bob Rae's NDP ran Ontario. One thing can be said for Linda Gibbons, she is one person who has the courage of her convictions.

Related Articles:
Unsung Heroes - Ralph Edmund
Unsung Heroes - Sandra Tineo
The "A" Word

Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp's Underage Sex Ring

Here's a shocker. Watch how an undercover couple reveals how Planned Parenthood aids and abets the sex trafficking of minors.

The Issue That Just Won't Go Away

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the information given below was such a good snapshot of the division in our culture that it needed to be shared. I highly encourage you to check out Lifesite's web-site for related stories. There are many which you will rarely, if ever hear covered in the national media.

For example, in Canada we have the Conservative government making fools of themselves by trying to submit another bill in place of Jake Epp's "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act. Epp is a Conservative who refuses to bend to political correctness and his own party is trying to pull the carpet out from under him. We also have numerous winners of the Order of Canada who are turning in their medals in protest over the naming of abortionist Henry Morgantaler to their ranks.

This issue is the elephant in the room that the media will not deal with rationally. Science has now clearly proven that a new life is formed from the moment of conception. Doctors are now doing surgery on babies in the womb at early gestation to save their lives while doctors in another part of the hospital are killing babies who are older. How do we rationalize this? We just don't talk about it and hope it all goes away.

Let me know what you think of the article.

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion

By Tim WaggonerWASHINGTON, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)

"Catholic" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blatantly fallacious remarks on August 24 regarding the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion have triggered a tidal wave of criticisms from clergymen, congressmen and Catholics nationwide.Responding to a question from NBC's Meet the Press moderator Tom Brokaw about when human life begins, Pelsosi appealed to her extensive research on the issue as well as her "ardent" Catholic faith to claim that, "I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins." She asserted that "over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition," in attempt to support her pro-abortion and pro-contraception stance. Watch the full interview here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUSt7dfj5I)

The response to Pelosi's statements has been intense as Catholic leaders across America are wondering how a "Catholic" with a self-proclaimed broad understanding of the Catholic Church's position on human life could have overseen the straightforward teaching contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl quoted this teaching (section 2270-2271 of the CCC) in a letter responding to Pelosi's comments: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." (Catechism, 2270-2271)

Rebuking her, Archbishop Wuerl said that, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion." For the full letter see: (http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=569&Year=2008)

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, also issued a release on Pelosi's remarks, explaining that Pelosi's belief that a woman has the "right to choose" to end her baby's life contradicts Catholic teaching and addressing her comments suggesting the Catholic Church has been polarized on the issue over the course of history.None of the early Fathers "diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong," said Archbishop Chaput. "Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith," he added.

For the full letter see: (http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf)

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine also wrote a response letter.After mentioning the fact that scientists are certain that "a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization," the bishops wrote, "In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life." For the full letter see: (http://www.usccb.org/)

Edward Cardinal Egan of the Archdiocese of New York is another Church leader that has stepped up to defend the faith of his people. Please see upcoming separate LifeSiteNews.com coverage on his comments.It was not only the leaders of the Church that felt the need to correct Pelosi. Ten congressmen have sent Pelosi a letter asking her to publicly rectify her misrepresentation of Catholic teachings.

"As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you (Pelosi) would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority," said the congressmen. "Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error." "To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church's actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life," concluded their letter, which contained the following signatures.

Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI)

Hon. Steve Chabot (OH)

Hon. Virginia Foxx (NC)

Hon. Phil Gingrey (GA)

Hon. Peter King (NY)

Hon. Steve King (IA)

Hon. Daniel Lungren (CA)

Hon. Devin Nunes (CA)

Hon. John Sullivan (OK)

Hon. Patrick Tiberi (OH)

See the full letter from the congressmen here: (http://www.americanpapist.com/Pelosi%20Letter.pdf)

Unborn Victims of Crime Act

Welcome to Canada - a place where you can be charged for killing a fawn still in its mother's womb, but not with killing a human baby still in its mother's womb. Hard to believe, isn't it? Yet that is precisely the case. In November of 2007 three hunters in British Columbia were charged under the wildlife act after killing two female deer. According to CanWest news, they were charged with four counts because the adult deer were pregnant.

Yet across the country left-wing bloggers are filling the internet with blogs speaking out against the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, a piece of legislation which would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the child's mother is the victim of a crime. To look at this bill on its own, it would be hard to find a persuasive argument against it. How could someone be opposed to wanting to protect the unborn child of a mother who is happily awaiting her delivery date?

Here's the rub. This debate gets muddied because pro-abortionists look at this as the thin edge of the wedge. They are of the belief that, if this law is passed, it will open the floodgates and there will be many more bills to follow wanting to protect the rights of the unborn. This may be so - but it doesn't mean this bill doesn't make sense. In fact, I think it brings to the forefront very quickly the shallow arguments of some on the left.

Let's give a scenario. Imagine a young woman with an unplanned pregnancy from a since-broken relationship. She has decided that she wants to keep the baby and is making plans to raise this child herself. However, the man is fuming that she has refused his demands that she abort. He doesn't want to deal with the fact that he will have a child out there somewhere and that he may end up having to pay support. So he goes after her. He beats her, and repeatedly kicks her in her now swelled abdomen. As a result of this attack, she miscarries.

Does it not make obvious sense that this man ought to be charged with murder? What fantasy world are we living in when we blissfully argue (as is the case in Canadian law) that the fetus is not human until fully emerged alive from its mother. This is not only wrongheaded, it also flies in the face of all of the scientific discoveries of the past few decades.

I've also heard the argument that judges are free to take into account, during sentencing, that a mother was pregnant when attacked. But why should a judge have the option of not taking this into consideration. Of course this should be front and center of a case like the one mentioned above. We have granted rights in Canada to everyone else for whatever special interest or fetish they might have. We've even granted rights to unborn fawns. It's time we gave some protection to these unborn victims of violence. An Environics poll released in October 2007 found that 72% of Canadians-75% of women-would support "legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a foetus during an attack on the mother." Support Member of Parliament Ken Epp as he works to have this bill passed.