PM Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Contraception and Abortion

I just ran across this article on MSN.ca. I don't have time to do the research needed to fully flush this issue out, but I wanted to point it out to you all.

Basically, the Liberals have introduced a motion in the House of Commons requiring the Federal Government to ensure its maternal health proposal to the G8 is based on "scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths" and refrain from the "failed right-wing ideologies" of former U.S. president George W. Bush. Canada's proposal to the G8 must include "the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception," according to the motion.

It appears to me to be being pitched as a contraception motion, but I think it goes further than that. The full range of sexual and reproductive health options generally includes abortion. I suspect this is the Liberal's attempt to bring up the abortion debate again.

***Author's Note- I have done no real research on this motion, so the following commentary is just me speculating/ranting/editorializing. If you have further information on this, please post a link in the comment box***

Why are the Liberals doing this?

Well, if you follow the polls, the Conservatives, despite the Liberal's and media's attempt to stir up trouble by claiming the government unconstitutionally prorogued parliament, are beating the Liberals. They've increased their lead over the Liberals which seems to puzzle the media.

I think Michael Ignatieff & Co are desperate to do something- anything- to bring the Conservatives down. (Personally, I think the best thing Mr. Ignatieff could do to increase his parties support is step down, but why would he ever listen to me?) I think he believes that reopening the abortion debate will allow him to bring back the spectre of the "secret agenda" that Jean Chretien used so successfully for years.

I think his strategy is "lets make the government seem anti-women's rights and then people will vote for us and we won't even have to come up with a coherent plan for running this country."

But I think that strategy is going to fail.

Why?

Because recent polls are showing that young people are becoming even more pro-life. Young Adults (my generation) are the mostly likely age group to agree that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

(Yes, I know the poll was of US young adults, but based on hope, and my contacts in the pro-life world in Canada, I think the same is true here)

And I'm praying that it DOES reopen the abortion debate. I've said it many times before on this blog, and I'm sure I will say it again- an open debate on abortion is the only way things will change. We have science and the truth on our side, and when people hear the truth and see the value in the arguments, they are forced to truly examine the issue. Once that happens, it's hard to stay pro-choice.

So Mr. Ignatieff, please do reopen the debate. I just hope you are ready for the consequences of it when it backfires spectacularly!

And everyone- please contact your MP and ask them to vote against this motion. Contraception in the form of condoms and the pill will do nothing to protect women in the developing world. If you give them contraception the following will occur:

1. They won't be used because of cultural taboos;
2. The Western mindset of "sexual liberation" will lead to further violence against women including rapes, stoning and genital mutilation because their will be no respect for women who will be seen as available for no consequences sex at anytime (don't believe me? Look at our culture and see how much respect for women has advanced in the last 30 years);

There is a reason the Catholic Church teaches contraception is morally wrong. Contraception denies the human dignity of the people who use it. Sex is a beautiful, sacred act and a form of prayer- when done inside the sacrament of marriage.

Sex unites the couple and gives the the unique ability to come together and participate in the act of creation. Contraception denies the couple the ability to be open to that act of creation, and it creates a barrier to the unity of husband and wife. Sex should be a life-giving act where both partners give fully of themselves to each other. Contraception prevents the couple from giving all of themselves to each other.

There is enough suffering in this world Mr. Ignatieff. Do you really want to create more by pushing the contraceptive mentality?

UPDATE: March 24, 2010 9:20 AM MST

The motion failed by a vote of 144-138. See here for details. It appears that 3 Liberal MP's voted against the motion (even though it was a whipped vote!) and several failed to show up to vote. If your MP voted against, please give him/her a call and thank them.

It's only by taking action and letting our elected representatives know how we feel that we can succeed.

Brad Trost Affirms Life Again!

I wrote about Brad Trost, the MP for Saskatoon-Humbolt here. I told you I was proud to have him as my MP when I lived in that riding.

Well, I'd like to tell you about another great thing he is doing. As you may be aware last week Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff raised the abortion issue stating that the Conservatives were trying to defund international "women's health" (read abortion) services.

I wish. But that's besides the point.

If you want to read his hysterical ravings, go here and here and here and here.

I don't want to talk about Mr. Ignatieff in this post because that will get me angry, and the post will turn negative. Instead, I want to talk about Mr. Trost and another Saskatoon MP, Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon- Wanuskewin). Both men are staunchly pro-life.

The wrote an article titled "Abortion ideology harmful tot he health of moms, children" in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix yesterday. You can read it here.

Its worth reading. It's nothing pro-lifer's haven't heard before, but its a well reasoned, well cited article. And its published in one of Saskatchewan's two major newspapers.

The abortion debate isn't dead. And with MP's like Mr. Trost and Mr. Vellacott, hopefully the issue will be discussed in the open. And that can only help the pro-life cause.

When people think about abortion- think about what it really is- the killing of a human being- they cannot remain pro-abortion.

If you live in either of these ridings, or if you just want to congratulate these courageous MP's, please write to them.

The Hon. Brad Trost, MP (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 992-8052
E-mail: trostb@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin)
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Phone: 613-992-1899
Fax: 613-992-3085
E-Mail: Vellacott.M@parl.gc.ca

And keep praying for a culture of life to take over this great country.

Today Marks 22 Years...

... Since all legal restrictions on abortion in Canada were struck down by the Supreme Court in the R. v. Morgentaler decision.

I've said it before on this blog, and I will say it again- Canada has one of the most (if not the most) permissive abortion regime on the planet.

Abortion is legal for all 9 months of pregnancy. Though its hard to find a doctor who will do it, partial birth abortion is perfectly legal in Canada.

January 22 marked the 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion in the United States. The US Council of Bishops announced that January 22nd was to be a day of penance and that masses that day would be dedicated to those who lost their lives to abortion.

While the Canadian Bishops have made no such pronouncement for today, I ask you all to think about doing something in penance for this grevious sin that stains our nation. Will you fast? Pray? Attend Mass?

Let's all do something, and then pray that next year won't mark the 23rd anniversary.

Too many have died already.

May God have mercy on us all.

No Words

One of the things I miss most about student life is the opportunity to be involved in pro-life activism. I am sure there are opportunities here, but I have yet to find them.

What I seem to do instead is read a lot more. And it's gotten to the point where I thought I was enurred to the horror of what abortion is.

And then I read this article.

I hate looking at graphic images of abortion- they horrify me. It horrifies me that we can do this too each other.

I didn't think words could affect me the same way. But this article did.

There are no graphic images, but the descriptions were enough.

Take some time to read it. Once in a while we all need to be reminded of the truth of the evil we are facing.

Then weep for all the lies lost. (I know I did).

Then pray.

Pray for all the babies lost to abortion.

Pray for all the mother's who've had abortions.

Pray for all the father's who've lost children to abortions.

Pray for the societies that allow and encourage these atrocities to occur.

Pray for yourselves. That you will have the courage and confidence to stand up for these, the most vulnerable of us all.

May God have mercy on us all.

h/t The American Catholic

Bride Shortage of 24 Million!

I blogged about China's one child policy here. Today, CNN has a report stating that China will be short 24 million brides by 2020.

This is a result of the one child policy and China's cultural preference for male heirs. It's going to cause huge social upheaval in China.

Whenever one sex outnumbers another, life is difficult. Historicly we've only seen this occur during periods of exploration- men would set out to explore, and the women would follow years or decades later. Part of why the West was wild is the lack of women. Women provide a calming influence, and give the instinctive male urge to protect an outlet. When a man has a family to raise, he channels his energies into providing for them. When he lacks that stabilizing force, crime increases.

And this isn't something humanity has grown out of. The city I work in has a HUGE immigrant population (approx 1/3 of the population has immigrated to Canada in the last 15 years). When the immigration first started happening, it was all men; coming to Canada for the jobs here. Most of them have been upstanding citizens and regularly send large portions of their paycheques home.

But there are always a few bad apples, and that's true here. Crime rates in this city skyrocketed- at one point we had the highest per capita crime rate in Canada. Fast forward a few years, and these men have obtained their permanent resident card, or even their citizenship, and their wives and children are moving here. Crime rates have been dropping for the last few years. This hasn't been studied, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest a correlation between single young men and crime rates.

And I fear that's what China has to look forward to. That will be the legacy of its one-child policy

The saddest part of this article is that the Chinese government is ignoring these dangers- they have no interest in changing their policy. It is to remain in place. They are already facing catastrophic demographic failure. Waiting won't fix anything; it will only make it worse.

Actually, I changed my mind.

The saddest part of this whole story is that the one child policy has prevented 400 million births. And knowing that China forces abortions if a women has more than one child, and that people will choose to abort a female child in hope of having a male, a large portion of those 400 million were not "prevented" they were murdered.

Morgentaler, Conscience and the Order of Canada

The Canada Gazette (the official newspaper of the Government of Canada) is reporting that Governor General Michelle Jean (the Queen's representative in Canada- for my American readers, the Queen is Canada's head of state) has accepted the resignation of Fr. Lucien Larre and Renato Guiseppe from the Order of Canada (the Order is Canada's highest civilian honour).

Why are these men turning in their awards?

Because in July, 2008, the Order Selection Committee (headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) decided to award Mr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Mr. Morgentaler is an abortionist and a pro-choice activist. It was his actions that lead to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Morgentaler that lead to Canada's abortion law being struck down in 1988. (See my previous post on Canada's lack of abortion laws here)

Awarding the Order to Mr. Morgentaler was controversial at best. (I was appalled, but unfortunately, not shocked by the decision.)

I want to applaud these two men for returning their Orders. Awarding it to Mr. Morgentaler tarnished the value of the award. It turns it into little more than a political tool to bestow favour upon the politically correct.

I know very little about either of these men, but anyone who will act according to their consciences is ok by me. Please pray for them, and please also pray for Mr. Morgentaler. He is no longer a young man, and one day he will have to account to God for the deaths he caused. Pray that he sees the error of his ways before that happens.

(For more info on the awarding of the Order to Mr. Morgentaler, go here and here.)

File this one as a head scratcher

I'm thinking there has to be more to this story.

Apparently there is a new Bill being passed by the Legislature in Quebec that requires abortionaries to adhere to minimum hygiene and safety standards- essentially they have to perform abortions in sterile environments.

As a result at least one abortionary is set to close because they can't meet the standards.

So my first thought

1) Yay an abortionary has to close!

2) What?!?! They weren't operating in sterile environments before and the government had to pass a law to enforce it?

On second thought- maybe there isn't more to the story. After all abortionists don't care about the baby they are killing- why should they care about the mother?

CCCB report on Lifesite’s allegations against Development and Peace re: abortion

As I have hoped (and urged the bishops to do) the CCCB's report into Lifesite's allegations has been made public. You can read the report here . The report concludes:

"We believe the allegations by Lifesite News – that financial assistance by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) aided projects related to the promotion of abortion – are not founded on the facts."

Before I comment, I want to note a few things about the report especially as they are things I was concerned about in earlier posts. First, the investigation was lead by Archbishop Martin William Currie of St. John's and Bishop of Grand Falls and Bishop Francois Lapierre of Saint-Hyacinthe. The investigatory commission also included Msgr. Carlos Quintana, C.S.S., Executive Director of the National Collection for the Church in Latin America of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Msgr. Mario Paquette, P.H., General Secretary of the CCCB and Development and Peace officials; Michael Casey, Executive Director, Paul Cliche, Deputy Director of the International Programs Department, and André Charlebois, Program Officer for Latin America. The report states that the D&P officials were involved to see to "travel arrangements and other organizing." I 'm noting this because my concern has been from the beginning that D&P officials might try to hinder and bias the investigation.

Another note- The CCCB commission did speak with the Mexican Catholic Bishops during the investigation. The report does not comment on what the bishops said, except to state that: "We regret that the Mexican organizations have so little or no relation with the Episcopal Conference of their country." I'm noting this because I find it interesting that the Mexican Bishops aren't involved with these groups, and I wonder why.

Analysis

Summary

This could get to be a very long post, so I am going to quickly summarize my thoughts on the investigation here. The detailed analysis follows

1. The investigation was a wasted effort because it did not investigate the allegations made by Lifesite, it investigated the allegations D&P claimed Lifesite made, which are two very different things.

2. The investigation must have found something wrong with D&P because they did have some strong words for D&P (couched in the type of language Bishop's use) though they do not elaborate on what that may be.

3. The Bishop's do not seem to have had all the information before they did this investigation because they claim Lifesite has avoided contacting the CCCB and establishing dialogue on this issue, yet Lifesite has been in contact with the bishop's from the start

4. The only comment on any of the evidence gathered by Lifesite was directed to the piece of evidence showing that the 5 groups signed a report that advocated several positions in contradiction with the teachings of the Church (including abortion and contraception). The bishops merely stated that signing this was "imprudent" and concluded it was ok because they were merely showing solidarity with the other groups working for human rights.

My position on funding D&P has not been changed by this report. The report does not address Lifesite's allegations, nor does it address the very clear and very damning evidence Lifesite has produced which leads me to believe that D&P will continue to fund organizations that I believe support abortion. As I have stated from the beginning, if an organization I fund gives money to an organization that supports abortion- even if my money isn't directly used to support abortion- I am morally complicit in those abortions and therefore in a state of mortal sin if I know or suspect that is what the groups are doing. With all due respect to D&P and the CCCB, my soul is too important to leave to the hope that D&P is not involved, especially when I have seen clear evidence otherwise.

Detailed Analysis

Point 1

As I quoted above, the CCCB found that D&P did not aid projects related to the promotion of abortion. That is all well and good, and I'm glad that D&P isn't doing that, because that would be an even greater scandal than the one facing them. The allegations against D&P are that they are funding groups who support abortion- i.e. money D&P gives goes to worthy endeavors, but the groups are also involved in abortion related advocacy.

This is a very big difference. Essentially the allegation is that D&P is giving money to groups who use that money to build homes or dig wells for fresh water, but those same groups also support abortion. This is the problem- even if the D&P money isn't being used for abortions, the money D&P gives frees up other money to be used for abortion. Hence, those donating to D&P are still complicit in the abortions.

And, just to ensure that no one thinks I'm splitting hairs now because the CCCB investigation didn't come to the same conclusion as me, I point you to the very first post I wrote on this issue back in March where I made this exact distinction. Lifesite has been very clear from the start as to what the allegations are- it is D&P who has worked to distort those allegations. It appears to me that D&P succeeded in framing this debate the way they wanted it to go. Of course the CCCB finds no truth to these allegations- they are not the allegations Lifesite was making!

Point 2

While the investigation doesn't find any basis for the allegations against D&P they did express the hope that:

"The present circumstances encourage Development and Peace to be more vigilant in analysing requests for financial assistance and more demanding about receiving information from possible partners. While recognizing the good relations and communications that already exist between CCODP and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, we would encourage Development and Peace to ensure more thorough consultations with the Bishops of Canada, particularly the two Bishops who are appointed as members of the Development and Peace National Council, especially when there are questions involving moral issues such as abortion and contraception." (Italics mine)

My question is, why did the bishops feel the need to make this statement? I can only see two possible reasons 1) they found something wrong, but don't feel they have enough evidence to make it public or 2) they are attempting to make those who find the evidence compelling feel better. I can't see the bishops just providing a sop for our consciences, so I think they must have found something. I base this on the fact that the report doesn't comment on what the Mexican Bishops have to say and that it doesn't deal with all the evidence against D&P. I hope that I'm wrong on this- not because I don't think there is wrongdoing, but because the bishops are then playing a very dangerous game with the souls entrusted to their care.

Point 3

The report also rebukes Lifesite for not opening dialogue with the CCCB on this issue. I'm wondering why the bishops say this- I think it has been very clear from the coverage Lifesite has given that they have been in dialogue- if they hadn't why would 4 bishops have spoken up and withheld funding from D&P? They have to have based a decision like that on more than one report from Lifesite. In their analysis of the report, Lifesite explains how it has tried to dialogue with the bishops on this, but that the CCCB was not willing to meet with them. To me, that makes the bishop's rebuke a little hypocritical and jeopardizes any trust I might have put into the report.

Point 4

Finally, the report deals with only one of the many pieces of evidence amassed against D&P's 5 Mexican partners. The piece it does deal with- the report signed by the 5 partners along with 45 other Mexican human rights organizations that expresses support for several things that violate Church teachings (including abortion and contraception)- DOES express support for abortion by those partners; the very thing Lifesite alleged the partners were doing. The bishop's response to this is that it was merely an "imprudent" decision, and, as if it makes it all better, they note that several religious groups, including Dominicans and Jesuits signed the same document because it merely expresses a desire for greater human rights in Mexico.

WHAT!?!?!?!?

Two quick points here- first, if Dominicans and Jesuits are signing documents that violate Church teachings, the heads of their orders should be contacted, as should the Vatican, and an immediate investigation should begin. The CCCB should not be using that as an excuse for D&P's partners. That's like a kid saying it was ok to shoplift a candy bar because his two good friends did it to. What parent would accept that explanation? So why is the CCCB? Second, the bishops say it's ok because the 5 partners were just expressing their solidarity with other human rights groups. Uh huh. Isn't that the problem? If they are expressing solidarity with other groups, and that solidarity means they violate Church teachings, then aren't they a group no Catholic should support? Isn't that a little like a kid lying to his parents about going to a party he's not supposed to attend and then when he's caught just saying "oh well Jim and Joey and Mark and Sam were saying the same thing and I wanted to support them." Again, what parent would accept that? Mine certainly wouldn't.

Lifesite, in their response, claims that this piece of evidence (the report signed) was the "least significant." I don't know, it seems pretty significant to me. So if the CCCB just waves this piece away, why didn't they deal with all the other pieces. If this report is supposed to put to rest this controversy, then why didn't the CCCB deal with all the evidence? Why go all the way to Mexico if you aren't going to deal with all the evidence and allegations? What's the purpose of the investigation then.

Conclusion

I'm sorry- I still stand by my original conclusion. This report raises, in my mind, more questions than it answers. To be honest, I'd really like to know why the Mexican bishops have no involvement with these groups. If they are such worthy organizations, why don't the Mexican bishops deal with them? We can speculate until the cows come home, and it may be perfectly innocent but I want to know why, and I think the CCCB should have included in the report the testimony from the Mexican bishops they met with.

Since the CCCB didn't deal with all the evidence, how can I trust their conclusion? Even more importantly, they didn't address the right allegations, so how can I trust that D&P isn't complicit in abortion- they never investigated that! Not only that, this report only deals with the first 5 partners Lifesite made allegations against. As far as I know, the CCCB has no intention of investigating the other 14 partners Lifesite made allegations against. How can I possibly trust D&P with my funds when questions like this remain?

The bishops, at the end of the report state:

"The dignity of each human life is to be protected and promoted from conception to natural death. Thus there is an urgency to all that threatens the dignity and sacredness of human life"

If the dignity of each life is to be promoted (and it should be I think) why aren't the bishops being more careful to ensure that faithful Catholic's donations are not being used by groups who support abortion. Why are they resting on their laurels and producing short useless reports when there is the potential that human lives are being ended? How does that promote the sanctity of life? It doesn't and until they deal with this D&P will get no funding from me, and I will do everything I can to ensure that my family and friends don't donate to D&P either. Donations will still be made, but they will be made to organizations that I trust and know to follow Church teachings. Unfortunately, D&P no longer falls into that category.

Development and Peace

I said I would only post on D&P if new, major developments occurred, and there are two I want to bring your attention to.

First, the Family Issues arm of Catholic Council of Bishops in Peru has written a letter to the CCCB asking them why they (through D&P) are financially supporting the very groups that the Peruvian bishops are fighting against because of their support of abortion. You can read the letter here. The letter is very direct, and formally asks the CCCB to halt funding to the organizations. The letter states:

"It is very disturbing to have groups which work against the Bishops of Peru by attempting to undermine legal protection for the right to life of unborn children, be funded by our brother bishops in Canada"

I don't know how more direct the bishops can be. This is no longer a case of "some internet groups rabblerousing" as some bishops in Canada have suggested. There is a direct call by another council of Bishops asking the CCCB to halt the funding. I hope that this letter is the wake up call the CCCB needs.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is. The second development I want to share with you is the news that the investigation conducted by the CCCB into 5 of D&P's Mexican partners found absolutely no evidence of abortion or abortion related activity. Archbishop Weisberger of Winnipeg (the head of the CCCB) in an interview with Salt and Light Television stated:

"But I can assure you that in the report, the bishops found very clearly that there was no evidence that Development and Peace in any way funded abortion-related activities."

He also (in my opinion) questioned the credibility of LSN for making the allegations. He essentially said that we now have a choice- to believe LSN or to believe the Bishops:

"It seems that there is a tendency on the part of some people to trust allegations on websites more than they trust the bishops. That’s the role of the bishops in the Church and when the bishops investigate something, when the bishops look at things and when the bishops teach, according to our theology, we should have confidence in that."

You can read the transcript of the interview here.

I don't like Archbishop Weisberger telling me that I have to accept what the CCCB says because they are the ones with the authority on moral teachings. As anyone who has been reading this blog for awhile knows, I am a very ardent supporter of the Church and her Bishops and I believe strongly in the authority of the Magisterium. However, I think Archbishop Weisberger is being disingenuous by claiming that now that the investigation is done, we just have to trust what the Bishops have said.

We have yet to actually read the report done by the CCCB. I want to know exactly what was said by whom, and who the CCCB talked to, and how involved D&P was in the investigation itself. I believe the bishops can run a thorough investigation, but this was not one- the set up of the committee going was heavily loaded with D&P members- that's not unbiased. In law, when picking a jury, potential jurors are screened for biases they can't put aside- that didn't happen here, and it should have.

Also, the Bishops have yet to address the other 14 allegations made, and based on the transcript of the Salt and Light interview, I don't think they are going to. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but if the investigation into all the allegations is not done, how can the bishops speak authoritatively on it?

There is something rotten in the D&P organization. The proof Lifesite has offered is, in my opinion, very strong, and the CCCB has ignored it.

Lifesite has summarized the allegations and following events into a short 5 minute video- I suggest you all watch it, and ask you to pass it along to your friends.

And please, write your bishops again and ask them to do three things- 1) release the D&P report 2) investigate the other allegations 3) respond publicly to the Peruvian Bishops letter. Of course, be respectful, but make sure they understand that you are concerned about being complicit in the deaths of unborn children.

UN states that criminalizing abortion is torture

I can't believe this. The committee in charge of overseeing the Convention Against Torture (CAT) has declared that Nicaragua's law that forbids abortion violates the Torture Convention. (See the story here )

I've read a lot of allegations against the pro-life movement, and I am rarely outraged anymore, but this is outrageous! Last year, as part of my international law training, I spent a lot of time looking at what torture is, how we define it etc. I read some truly heinous accounts of what we do to our fellow humans- quite often it turned my stomach and gave me nightmares.

I can't even believe that someone would say that preventing the murder of unborn children is torture to the mothers. And yet, this is what the committee is saying. I don't understand it. They have to have read the same court cases and first hand accounts that I did- of people being starved, beaten and broken, and yet they can equate that with the murder of an unborn child? I don't understand.

Internationally there is no one accepted definition of torture (this causes problems, but that's international law for you) The CAT has the most widely accepted definition and defines torture in Article 1 as:

...the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Please tell me how any of that equates to preventing women from having abortions, because I just don't see how that works. I expect silly statements like this from Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations, but not from the UN committee who's sole purpose is to find and prosecute instances of torture around the globe.

There are men, women and children being tortured in many countries around the world as we speak. The UN is doing nothing to stop it, mostly for political reasons. But a country that tries to protect life? Well that must be torture. Because its politically expedient and because the UN is trying to push a population control agenda, we will go after that.

This is disgusting and a betrayal of the values the UN was founded on. I've long thought that the UN is irrelevant, and with decisions like this, they are merely proving my point.

Missing Girls

Just read this article in the NY Times. As I imagine most people are aware, China has a huge problem with sex selected abortion. As a result of the enforced one child policy, the cultural preference for boys, and recent developments in technology, baby girls are often aborted.

A recent study shows that in the 0-20 age range, China has 32 million more boys than girls.

32 million!

People are talking about the huge social ramifications this will have on the country- potential for increased violence without the "calming and settling" influence of women, increasing demographic decline but no one is talking about the psychological impact this will have on the country.

I can't imagine the trauma the mothers and fathers who've been forced to abort their daughters are going through. We know abortion has long range traumatic effect- post abortion syndrome for example. Generally that impacts on the individual level, but when the country's policy is to abort children, that impact has to expand the the national level. How does an entire country heal from those scars?

And the other part that saddens me (which the NY Times article never talked about) is the loss of all those lives. Those little girls were killed as a result of official government policy! And more and more are being killed every day.

The study says that China is trying some "imaginative and extreme scenarios" to fix the gender imbalance. Here's one they should consider: CANCEL THE ONE CHILD POLICY, and CRIMINALIZE ABORTION.

Is that innovative and extreme enough?

And, as a side note- if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why are we concerned that the Chinese are aborting themselves into extinction and self imposing genocide on themselves? The hypocrisy of the pro-choice mentality shows itself once again.

Clear Evidence of Development and Peace Partner supporting abortion

Lifesite has found another Mexican D&P partner supporting abortion. Read the story here.

This group compares legislation preventing abortion to "torture" and "cruel and inhuman punishment." Wow.

I really wish I had time to comment on this- I spent 8 month last year investigating what constitutes torture and cruel and inhuman punishment, but this has to be a short post- I have an exam in a the morning and will try to comment when the chaos of exams is over.

Please read the story- it's horrifying and gives, I think, some of the best direct evidence against and D&P partner that we have seen.

And, I cannot believe that Catholics are supporting an organization that compares a CHILD to the agonies inflicted by torturers around the world. It is bad enough that a group that would claim something like that exists, and horrific that Catholic money is funding them- to the tune of $35,000 so far, and $175,000 if D&P isn't stopped.

Keep contacting your bishops. Please.

Development and Peace and Abortion

As you are all undoubtedly aware, abortion is an issue that lies close to my heart. When I read this article, I was mad, and so I am posting this because I want the information to get out to as many people as possible. I am also asking that you read the following post with the charity in which it was intended, because I am not trying to upset or anger anyone. I am simply, as always, concerned about the lives of the least of us; that is, the unborn who are completely voiceless.

As you may be aware, Development and Peace holds a Share Lent campaign to raise funds every Lent. They have a campaign underway again this year. Development and Peace is a Canadian Catholic organization that raises money and awareness of third world issues. For example, one year they focused on the problems of clean drinking water. Another year they focused on exploitative mining practices in the Global South.

While Development and Peace does a lot of good work, they also support groups that support and promote abortion. For more information on how and where this is happening, please see this link.

It concerns me greatly that a Catholic organization gives money to groups that promote abortion. It concerns me even further that when asked, they state "The criterion is not pro-life or pro-abortion...If the piece of work they propose to us is something we want to support it is something that is within our parameters, if yes we support them, if not we don't. "We don't have a policy for or against abortion." As a Catholic organization, they must, to be in line with the Church, be against abortion.

The leadership of Development and Peace does not appear to be willing to investigate where they spend their funds. Since those funds come from Catholics like you and me, we need to be concerned. Even $1 donated to an aid organization that promotes abortion is too much because it makes us all complicit in the abortion. The Catholic Church is against abortion in all circumstances, and I think it is reprehensible that an organization that won't take steps to ensure the money it raises doesn't go to abortion groups gets to speak and raise funds inside the Church, often at the end of or during mass.

I certainly don't think that the individual members of Development and Peace are anti-life, but I am afraid that they don't know enough about what their group does. I am asking all of you to not donate to Development and Peace until they put an end to this practice (which has been ongoing since at least 2000). There are many other worthwhile aid organizations that follow Catholic teachings that would love to receive your donations. Please choose one of them instead, and please inform you local Development and Peace committee about why you are not supporting them, so they can pass your comments onto their leadership.

If you want to contact the leadership directly, the information is below:

Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace
Gilio Brunelli, Director of International Programs
Phone: 514-257-8711
Email: info@devp.org
Development and Peace Website

Address in Toronto:
10 St. Mary Street, Suite#420
Toronto, Ontario
Canada, M4Y 1P9
Phone: (416) 922-1592
Fax: (416) 922-0957
Toll Free: 1-800-494-1401

Address in Montreal:
1425, René-Lévesque bld. West, 3rd Floor
Montréal, Québec
Canada, H3G 1T7
Phone: (514) 257-8711
Fax: (514) 257-8497
Toll Free: 1-888-234-8533

Please also pass this information onto your priests and other Catholics you know. All the good work Development and Peace does is undone by their complicity in abortion. They need to know that Catholics will not support that.

God Bless,
Sarah

Fighting for the Church

I don’t often take the time to actually write letters to the editor or reply to columnists, but an article I read in yesterday’s Edmonton Sun annoyed me so much I felt compelled to respond. (Read the article here)The article was titled “Vatican Lives in a Vacuum” and essentially went after the Church because of its response to the excommunication of the parents and doctor of a 9 year old girl in Brazil. The girl was pregnant with twins (the stepfather is accused of rape) and the doctor and mother decided that abortion was the only option. For their part in the abortion, the mother and doctors were excommunicated. (Read that story here)

Here was my response to the article:

I would just like illuminate a few teachings of Catholic doctrine that Ms. Jacob's column "Vatican lives in a Vacuum" misunderstood. The archbishop speaking out did not excommunicate the mother and the doctors; they were automatically excommunicated as soon as they made the decision to force the child to have an abortion because such action is considered a mortal sin by the Church. Anyone involved in procuring an abortion is immediately excommunicated, whether they are informed so by their bishop or not. While the statement didn't specifically mention the step-father, you can be assured that if he is guilty of rape, he has also been excommunicated for the same reasons.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong. They do that because they believe that the unborn fetus is a human being, and to abort the child is murder. Church law does not change on a case by case basis; it is law because it applies in every case. While this is an incredibly tragic case, the abortion simply compounds the crime of rape. If you read the doctor's reports further, they conclude that a vaginal birth could have killed the girl, not the pregnancy itself. That means the children could have been safely brought to term, and a C section performed. This choice would have saved all 3 lives, instead of killing 2. Not only that, there are potential long term complications from the abortion itself, which could include infertility later in life if the girl wants to have a family.

And finally, the tongue in cheek statement "you naughty Catholics shouldn't have sex unless you are planning to procreate" is actually true. Pregnancy is the natural end result of sex; why else do you think people spend thousands every year to try to avoid it with birth control that is never 100% effective. If you have sex, there is a possibility that you will get pregnant. The condom, even if used properly, is only 99% effective. That means 1 in 100 couples who have sex and use the condom correctly will end up pregnant. If you are not prepared to have a child, you should not be having sex; it's not that difficult to understand.

When writing a column on a statement made by the Catholic Church, please do a little bit of research first so you understand where the church is coming from rather than demonizing it because you disagree. The teachings of the church come from a large body of research spanning 2000 years and are based in theology, philosophy and science, and the church articulates reasons for every doctrine it has. If you'd like to know more, please don't hesitate to ask.

Yours,
Sarah

If the article upsets you as well, please send a letter to the editor to mailbag@edmsun.com or reply directly to the columnist at mindy.jacobs@sunmedia.ca. Please keep in mind that they only publish letters that are 100 words or less.

I really wish people would stop condemning the Church based on what they believe her to be saying, not what she actually teaches. It’s frustrating. And, when dealing with abortion, we need to keep in mind that the real issue is what are the unborn. This columnist (and many others) don’t believe the unborn children to be human. They are very concerned about the health and welfare of the child who was raped, and I commend them for it, but what about the health and welfare of the children she was carrying? If they are all human, how can the unborn be any less worthy of life?

Mob Rule

Last Friday night, St. Mary's University (Halifax, Nova Scotia) pro-life club hosted pro-life speaker Jojo Ruba from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform. Just after his presentation began, a mob of angry abortion activists disrupted his lecture. You can see video footage from the event in the above video. (They enter about 1 minute in).

Mr. Ruba kept his cool and tried to dialogue with the mob, but instead of answering his questions, they fell back on chants like "not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate," "women's bodies, women's lives, women won't be terrorized" and "Pro-life men have got to go! When you get pregnant, let us know!" According to media coverage, (here, and here) it looks like campus security showed up half an hour after the protestors, followed by Halifax police. The protesters were told to disband or face possible charges or arrest. At this point, coverage of the incident becomes unclear (I'm piecing it together from about a dozen blog posts, and some of them contradict each other)- I'm not sure if the protestors did disband, or if they remained outside the presentation shouting their rhetoric, but we do know that the speaker was ordered off campus by St. Mary's officials. He went to a nearby Catholic Church and finished his presentation.

This is absolutely ridiculous- the presentation had all the appropriate permissions, and did nothing wrong, but it was thrown off campus because a mob didn't like what it had to say? Huh? How does that make any sense? It seems there were fears that the mob might turn violent- an e-mail allegedly circulated earlier that day to pro-abortion supporters said they had to do whatever was necessary to prevent the presentation from going forward- but that is no excuse for shutting down the presentation.

What is happening on universities across Canada? What is happening to free speech? Are we no longer going to even pretend to claim we have free speech, because that's what seems to be happening. If the presentation had permission to occur (which it did) why was it forced to leave? The protesters should have been arrested. I believe strongly that everyone has a right to present their opinion, but that does not include the right to act as part of a violent mob. Had those protesters sat down to hear the presentation and then asked questions, I would have no problem with their behavior. However, instead of being respectful and engaging in meaningful dialogue, they engaged in mob activity and tried to suppress someone else's right to express their own opinion.

I hope St. Mary's administration realizes what they did was wrong and apologizes for it. Not only did they censor a valid academic debate, they gave into the will of a mob which sets a dangerous precedent. They should apologize to Mr. Ruba and take action against the members of the mob. At the very least, they should invite Mr. Ruba back, and pay all his expenses to have him give his talk again- this time without interruptions.

A quote from Gandhi has been going around the campus pro-life world lately- I thought I'd share it with all of you. "First they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight us, then we win."

Update: To see the rest of the presentation, go here.

Baby Shanice

A story broke yesterday about a baby born alive just prior to the baby being aborted. The baby's mother was 23 weeks pregnant and went for a late term abortion just outside of Miami. After she'd been given drugs to dilate her cervix and while she was waiting for the doctor to arrive, she went into labor and delivered a healthy baby girl. The baby's umbilical cord was cut, the baby placed in a biohazard bag and tossed out into the garbage. Her remains were found a week later by police after receiving anonymous tips. An autopsy determined that the baby girl breathed after birth. Legally this means she was born alive, which mean prosecutors can file murder charges. Today, the doctor who was performing the abortion had his license to practice medicine revoked.

Many people, both pro-life and pro-choice have declared their outrage over this. State Rep. Anitere Flores (equivalent of a MLA) has declared that murder charges should be filed. What I find terribly ironic about this whole situation is that had the abortion been properly performed, no one would have made a fuss about this. Its cases like this that reveal the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion position. The unborn are human beings deserving of full legal protections. I hope that the Miami DA decides to pursue a murder indictment for this. I wish the DA could for every abortion, but I'll take what we can get.

I'd be interested in hearing from President Obama about this. After all, while in the Illinois State Senate he voted against a bill that would protect infants born alive in the same way as this baby girl. I'd assume that means he thinks nothing wrong happened here.

Huh.

Gotta love the world we live in.

The only good thing to come out of this tragedy is that the baby's mother- an 18 year-old named Sycloria Williams- came face to face with her baby and she says that changed everything for her. I'm sorry it took this tragedy for her to see the true horror of abortion, but that is the fault of the society in which we live. She didn't realize baby Shanice (as she named the baby girl) was human because that's what society has taught her. And unfortunately, many other women have been duped into believing the same thing.

Rest in peace Shanice. I'm sorry your life was so short, but I pray that it can be a powerful witness to the world.

Framing the debate

Reading the paper today (The Sheaf), I had a bit of a revelation. The crux of the abortion debate seems to be in ensuring that we know where all parties to the debate stand. The reason our discussion seems so fruitless at times, I think, is because pro-lifers and pro-choicers are arguing from completely different perspectives. Pro-choicers presuppose that there is nothing wrong with abortion, and pro-lifers presuppose that there is everything wrong with abortion. I know- that doesn't seem like a big revelation, but when you think it through, it becomes much more.

There is no way we can dialogue with pro-choicers unless we recognize where they are coming from. If law has taught me anything, it's taught me that we need to use precise language and we need to frame the debate clearly before it even begins. I don't think we do a good job of that when we start conversations with pro-choicers. It's not easy to frame the debate, but if we are going to succeed in our debate and change hearts and minds, we MUST frame the debate.

This is especially important now, because historically the pro-choice movement has done a better job than pro-lifers in framing the debate- they have convinced the majority (the people who've never really thought about the issue) that abortion is perfectly acceptable. When most people start discussing their opinion on abortion they don't even realize that they've already accepted, subconsciously, that abortion is a valid option. Before we can ever convince them to be pro-life, we have to make them see that they are presupposing the acceptability of abortion.

It's not easy- I can't give you a step by step method to do it because every person is different and will respond differently to different questions. All I can advise is to ask short, simple yes or no questions. Make them realize that they are assuming abortion is correct. Once you've established that is their perspective, you can begin the dialogue- and you have to begin the dialogue around that issue. You have to convince them first that abortion is never acceptable. We do that by proving the humanity and personhood of the unborn child.

I am convinced that this is the only way we can win this debate. Abortion has been legal for so long people (generally) don't stop to question it. And to succeed that's what we need to do- we need to make people question what they have been fed for so long. The pro-choicers have framed the debate in terms of women's rights, and reproductive choice for so long. We need to change that in order to win.

And win we must. Lives depend on it.

Freedom isn’t Free

And I was worried about attacks on my pro-life club! If you remember, I blogged (here and here) about the controversy at the University of Calgary when their pro-life club decided to hold a GAP (Genocide Awareness Project). Well, today 3 members of the club were served with summons to appear in court to speak to the charge of trespass.

That's right; the U of C has formally charged 3 of their students with the crime of trespass. 3 others are expecting to be charged. Read the story here or here. I have a few questions, so here they are in no particular order.

1. How can students who've paid their tuition and been invited to attend the university be trespassing? (Oh right, because they don't like their opinion)
   
   
2. Why do all of the headlines on this story use anti-choice instead of pro-life (especially when the club is called prolife)? (Oh wait, I know because we've all bought the semantic arguments)
   
   
3. Where does a public institution, funded with tax dollars, get off claiming that the University is not a public institution? (Seriously, study some 1^st year Constitutional Law people)
   
   
4. Why did the U of C take 2 months to lay charges? (I have no snarky comment to make here- I would genuinely like to know)
   
   
5. Is the U of C charging them because they truly believed they trespassed illegally or because they don't like the message- would they charge Falun Gong protestors? (I think we all know the answer to that one)
   

I spent all day following this story and reading people's responses to it. The negative responses all seem to argue one of the following things:

1. They assume the club is religiously based and criticize the club for "pushing their beliefs on others"- This is a silly argument and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing. They are assuming that because the club members are pro-life, they are also religious. While the members might be religious, it does not change the scientific and intellectual nature of their arguments. Calling them religious and dismissing them is an ad hominum (personal) attack and ignores the merits of their arguments.
   
   
2. They take exception to comparing abortion to the Holocaust or Rwanda- again, they misunderstand the point of the protest. Abortion is compared to genocide because it IS genocide. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. That means that every abortion is a murder, and that systematic, government funded abortion is genocide.
   
   
3. They complain about the graphic nature of the images- Yes, the images are graphic. I hate seeing them, and almost inevitably cry after seeing a number of them. But that reaction doesn't mean showing the pictures is wrong. Historically, disturbing graphic images are almost always the impetus that drives change. For example, it was the diagram showing how crammed into the hold of a ship slaves were that drove the first abolitionists to act. It was images of black people being shot with high pressure fire hoses, and the pictures of Emmett Till's beaten and broken body that gave Rosa Parks and other civil rights activists the courage to act. It was the pictures of thin, emaciated Jews in concentration camps after liberation by Allies that made people truly believe genocide had occurred. At the time all these pictures were shown they were called graphic, and denounced in the same way that GAP is denounced. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it important. Especially today, we live in a very visual culture. Pictures can change hearts and minds. After all, a "picture is worth a thousand words."
   
   
4. They also argue that all the students had to do was turn the signs inward and the U of C would have allowed them to be displayed- This argument ignores the fact that the request by the university amounts to discrimination. The U of C Pro-life club is a club like every other club, and yet no other club is forced to turn their displays inward. Why should the U of C club submit to discrimination?
   
   
5. The other argument is that the students were warned they would be charged with trespass- That cannot be denied. But the students aren't complaining that they were charged; they are complaining that people are trying to censor them. Censorship is wrong. The students knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and they did it anyway because they knew what they were doing was right. Instead of condemning them, we should be congratulating them for their courage. People who stand up for liberty against tyranny should be hailed as heroes. Where would we be if the suffragettes had refused to speak out? If the abolitionists had been cowed by slave owner's threats? If civil rights activists had agreed jail was too high a price to pay? The world would be a much different place.
   

The U of C students were not violent; they merely put up some signs outside. Those pictures showed graphic images- of that there can be no doubt, but these students deserve our praise. Not only have they brought attention to abortion (which people try to ignore if they can) but they have brought attention to lack of tolerance at Canadian Universities. Freedom isn't free people. It comes at a cost, as these young Canadians are showing us all. God Bless them.

They will all be in my prayers; and I hope in yours too. But beyond prayers, please take a minute to right a polite, respectful letter to the U of C. Contact information is below. Send a copy of your letter to the two Calgary papers- the Sun and the Herald.

Dr. Harvey P. Weingarten, President
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-5460
Fax: (403) 289-6800
Email: president@ucalgary.ca

Not Sure…

I don't know what to think about this video. I see the point they are trying to get across, but I don't know that they made it in the best way. They are obviously trying to comment on the common point of view that a child who will grow up poor is better off never being born, but I don't know that Barak Obama was the best choice. After all he is a man who supports abortion very vocally.

I've watched this video a few times now, and my initial reaction really hasn't changed; I felt uncomfortable with it, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea, but I'm not sure they made their point in a very concrete way. The organization who made the video is Catholic Vote, but when their logo flashed up at the end, I wondered if they were trying to say Catholics should vote Obama, or, well I'm not sure what. The idea of the video is good, but in the end its presentation seems off and unclear. At the end of the video I'm left wondering exactly what their message is. And I know this organization is pro-life, but I've been to their website before. I'm not sure that the average person seeing that video is going to go to their webpage after watching the video, so I don't know that they are really getting their point across.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I'm sorry for the short post tonight- it's been a crazy day. Also, I'm going to be on the road this weekend dealing with some family stuff, so I may not post tomorrow. Fresh posts on Monday at the latest though! Have a great weekend.

Autism and the Culture of Death

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

I’m stunned; I really don’t know what to say after reading this article in the Daily Mail (UK) today. The title of the article says it all: “Why can't we face the truth? Having an autistic child wrecks your life”

The author of the article, Carol Sarler recounts the story of her friends, Cath and John and their son Tom, who is autistic. According to Sarler everyone who comes in contact with Tom, including Tom himself has their life destroyed. She outlines how Tom’s autism affects his parents, grandparents and friends and comes to the conclusion that everyone, including Tom would be better off if Tom had never been born. Don’t take it from me; read her final words:

“But looking on, as a relatively dispassionate observer; looking at the damage done, the absence of hope and the anguish of the poor child himself, do I think that everyone concerned would have been better off if Tom's had been a life unlived?
Unequivocally, yes”

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because it’s the same argument that is used to advocate for euthanasia, assisted suicide, sex-selected and eugenic abortions. I probably shouldn’t be surprised by this. Autism is yet another condition that makes some people “different” and because they are different and don’t fit our preconceived notions of how humans should function, we are all better off if they don’t exist.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t want to trivialize the difficulties that parents with autistic children face; I am sure it is hard, but just because something is hard doesn’t mean that we need to destroy it. What I find even more disturbing about the article is that the author is advocating for a pre-natal test for autism that would allow children suspected of having autism to be aborted. We already have a test like that for Down’s syndrome. The result is that 90% of fetus’s suspected of having Down’s are aborted. But then, what can you expect when people like Ms. Sarler think children with autism are better of never having been born.

I’ve always thought that before you can debate someone, you need to understand their perspective and try to see where they are coming from, but try as I might I cannot wrap my head around the idea that any person is better off never having lived. How can you say that? To say that is to say that existence is unimportant and to deny beauty of life in all its forms.
What perhaps worries me the most is the comments found at the end of the article. Most are supportive of the article. Those who were not supportive generally liked the idea of a genetic test for autism. The comments that speak about the sacredness of life and how every life is worth living are few and far between, and the voting system on the comments generally shows those comments to be viewed negatively by other readers.

It’s so very sad that this is the level our society has come down to. God have mercy on us all.