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.

And the Truth is Revealed

Very interesting news out of the US today. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is suing the US government because it gave federal dollars to the US Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to aid in their effort to end human trafficking around the world. (See the story here and here.) Why are they getting upset with a charity that does a lot of good work around the world to aid women and children who are sold into sexual slavery? Oh, for the obvious reasons; because the USCCB is imposing its religious views and that outweighs any good that they can be doing.

The ACLU's specific complaint is that because the USCCB doesn't provide contraception or abortion support, they should not be given any federal money for what they are doing. Apparently when helping women who are victims of sex trafficking, an organization should provide a "full range of services." Oh, but wait- the ACLU doesn't think these women should be given spiritual counseling because that might impose religious views on them. So much for a full range of services. The ACLU's other complaint is that by giving funds to a group that has a religious background, the government is violating the rules on separation of church and state.

Let's break this down.

First, the ACLU is upset because of the violation of the separation of church and state. I am not an American legal scholar, but I don't see how this is a violation of church and state. The Catholic Church is not imposing its views on the US government- to be doing that, they'd have to say they wouldn't accept the money unless the government changed its laws on abortion and contraception. That's not what they are doing. The government allocates a certain number of dollars to fight human trafficking, and because they can't do everything themselves (nor should they try to) they give the money to organizations who can best help the victims. Where is state sovereignty violated by the church in this?

Second, they want a full range of services offered. I know the ACLU is a left wing radical organization and I can't expect much logic from them, but studies have demonstrated that women who have abortions suffer higher levels of depression and mental illness than women who do not. Add to that the physical trauma of abortion on top of the mental and physical trauma they have already suffered as sex slaves, why should abortion be offered? What possible benefit can it have to these women? They have already been victimized; there is no need to victimize them again in the name of helping them.

Third, why should the Catholic Church have to change her beliefs to do the work (helping those in need) they have been doing for millennia? I think the church has the whole offering comfort and security thing down now. It has been offering aid and comfort for far longer than the ACLU or even the US has been around.

We all know why they are doing this. They want to force their radical agenda of abortion on everyone at all costs; even the health of the women they are supposedly trying to protect. I know the tone of this post has been sarcastic (I'm sorry) but I just don't understand organizations like the ACLU. The USCCB is doing good; it's taking care of women. There are many organizations I can think of that combat AIDS in Africa who think condoms are the way to go. I disagree with them, but you don't see me suing the government.

Throughout the world, the Catholic Church is one of the largest aid and relief organizations there is. Does the ACLU really care about these women so little that they would rather see the Church step out of giving aid? Because that's what will happen. It's happened in Massachusetts already; when Catholic adoption agencies were told they had to place children with homosexual couples, they closed their doors rather than violate the teachings of Christ. But I guess relativists can't understand anyone or any organization that places principles and morality above everything else.

Sadly, I think the ACLU (and organizations like it) would rather see the Church stop helping and let people die than turn and look critically at their reasoning. And that's what frustrates me the most about stories like this. Churches are perfectly positioned to help victims, but a society led by moral relativists won't let them help. God have mercy on us all.