Friday, November 28, 2008

University of Calgary Pro-Life Students Victorious - Administration Backs Down from Arrest Threats

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

CALGARY, Alberta, November 29, 2008 ( - University of Calgary officials have not followed through on their threats to arrest Campus Pro-Life students for erecting the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) display on campus grounds this week.

This past Wednesday and Thursday pro-life students at the university had set up the GAP display, which includes graphic images of abortions and comparisons between abortion and past genocides. In the weeks leading up to the display, however, the university had threatened the students with arrest, suspension, expulsion, and other censures, if they did not agree either to turn the signs inwards, so that they could not be seen by passersby, or not to erect the display at all.

Leah Hallman, president of Campus Pro-Life, told that she sees the fact that the university backed away from its threats to arrest the students as only a partial victory. The university, she said, may still be planning on taking legal action against the students who were present at the GAP display site, who had their names recorded by campus security officers.

"What the university administration will do is not clear, but I hope the university will continue to allow us to express our pro-life message and will rescind the order to turn the signs inward, especially as we are determined to display the GAP signs in the Spring semester, as we have in previous years," Hallman said.

"The most important thing right now," Hallman said "is for people to write to the university to express their support for the right of freedom of expression at the U of C."

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," a statement on Campus Pro-Life's website begins, quoting the French philosopher Voltaire. "These words of Voltaire are being ignored by the University of Calgary and we, their own students and the victims of their oppression, wish to expose their censorship, intimidation, and bully-tactics.

"We implore our fellow Canadians-who may disapprove of what we say but who will defend our right to say it-to support our rights to free speech, to communicate their disagreement to U of C, and to withdraw support from the university until U of C upholds academic freedom."

Leah asks that everyone who writes to the university administration also send a copy of their correspondence to Campus Pro-Life.

U of C Campus Pro-Life contact info:
Campus Pro-Life
PO Box 84065
Calgary AB
T3A 5C4
Leah Hallman, President: 403-808-3412
Cameron Wilson, Vice President: 403-465-9164

University of Calgary contact info:
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

A question I want to ask all Canada-loving Liberals

Do you want a government with separatists in it?

It just kills me. You'd rather have separatists in government than Conservatives?

I can't get over it. Just think of how the Bloc is going to take advantage of this to get their way. They must be rolling on the floor laughing right now.

Liberals and Dippers are bling. The Bloc will use this opportunity to advance their separatist agenda.

Has the opposition no shame?

And yes, I know, it's the third post on this topic, but it's roiling me big time. This is a vile tactic.

What say you, Liberals? Are you not disgusted at the prospect of sharing government with a party that wants to destroy Canada?

The Liberals are Stupid, Part 2

Think about it:

A federal government...where separatists hold a balance of power?

Is ANYONE thinking of National Unity here?

So now the Conservatives have backed down on the party funding issue. They won't make party-funding a confidence motion.

I am absolutely disgusted at the venality of the opposition parties. They were willing to spend another $300 million on elections just to save their funding, which shouldn't be going to them in the first place. Think Barack Obama, people! You like to cite him as a model. Why not now???

And you know, Michaelle Jean, given her political proclivities, probably would have allowed a coalition.

The Liberals are Stupid

The news is this morning that the Opposition Parties are set to topple the government over a lack of a stimulus package in the economic statement.

As I'm typing, I'm listening to John McCallum swearing up and down the CBC that all Liberal MP's will vote against this statement.

The CBC interviewer says that Barack Obama raised his own money, implying the other parties should, too.

McCallum's answer: this is not the time to bring up this subject.

Sure, McCallum.

Says the Globe and Mail:

The Liberals are privately livid about the decision to end the funding. However, they were cautioned at their emergency caucus Thursday morning to focus on the economy and job losses rather than the subsidy to political parties.

Gee, that's exactly what McCallum is doing on NewsWorld as we speak. He is just limping through this interview. The interviewer is calling this a game of "chicken".

(I'm doing live-blogging of the CBC all of a sudden)


Getting back to my original topic...

The point I wanted to make is that the Liberals would have to be crazy to go into this election. They have a lame duck leader. What are they going to do if, theoretically, Stephane Dion becomes Prime Minister. And then they have a leadership race and Ignatieff or Rae become Prime Minister (I shudder at the prospect of either of them being PM). What then?

And we already just had an election...did no one think of that?

That is the stupidest tactic I've seen in a long time. A coalition government makes more sense, although the G&M says that the NDP will not agree to it. Wouldn't that raise constitutional issues?

This would make a big mess.

Just bite the bullet folks. The Conservatives are in charge. Crap, if the Liberals go for this, that doesn't show a lot of good political judgment.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Texas Court Ruling on Murder Case Defines Unborn Child as "Person"


According to the court's published opinion, Eguia complained that "the State’s definition of 'individual' 'has the effect of endorsing religion as it is based solely upon a religious belief that life begins at conception.'"

Religious belief? Okay, then-- when does an individual member of the species homo sapiens begin his biological life?

They never seem to answer that question.

Justice Elsa Alcala concluded that, because a statute does not violate the Establishment Clause when serving a secular purpose, "the definition of 'individual' serves the State’s legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others."

The court also cited precedent to affirm that, "a statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals."

No kidding! How convenient for militant secularists to object only to those points of religion they disagree with, but not to the ones they do agree with. Take theft, for instance. Taking someone else's property is wrong in any religion. But somehow they never object to that, do they?

In addition, Eguia argued that under such a statute abortion practitioners would also be guilty of murder, but the court noted that earlier legislation had already "narrowed the class of murderers who may be charged by specifically excluding 'conduct committed by the mother of an unborn child' and 'a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician ... with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure.'"

Thousands of Muslims attack Church of the Virgin Mary in Cairo

On November 23rd, thousands of Muslims stormed the Church of the Virgin Mary to manifest their opposition to its inauguration. The Church was formerly a factory that was retrofitted. Muslims unhappy with this new addition took over the first floor of a newly-built building on the other side of the street and hastily established a mosque in the early hours of the morning.

Security forces tried to disperse the mob, but to no avail. At five o’clock in the afternoon, attacked the Church, broke its windows and destroyed its first floor. The mob were chanting Jihad verses as well as slogans saying "we will demolish the church" and "We sacrifice our blood and souls, we sacrifice ourselves for you, Islam", while the entrapped Christians chanted "Lord have mercy".

When the police moved in, they then attacked local Christian homes and businesses and were armed with sticks, butane, knives and other sharp objects.

Reports indicate that there were 10 000 or 20 000 Muslims in the mob. 800-100 Christians were in the Church.

To give you a sense of what the scene was like, I downloaded these videos and put them up on youtube for easy viewing. The video is about 3 minutes long. It's dark, but gives you a good idea of what went on.

H/T: Spanish Pundit.

Ditch the Ontario Progressive Conservatives: Support The Family Coalition Party

This morning's Globe and Mail had a story about how Ontario's Progressive Conservatives are in a state of "suspension" because of John Tory's leadership.

He has failed to persuade any of his caucus to give up their seat. Even if he does win, what would he bring to the legislature? He projects a sense of liberal-lite, someone who is afraid and maybe even embarrassed to stand by traditionally conservative policies: low taxes, less spending, less government, more democracy and more focus on family-friendly, socially conservative policies.

"Leaders come and go" as the saying goes. But since the departure of Mike Harris, it seems that the Ontario PC's have lost their way and seem afraid to assert themselves. They are in the wilderness and I don't see any sign of it improving. When you work for a right-wing party, it should deliver on right-wing policies.

Otherwise what's the point?

When I watch the Ontario legislature, I can't get over what Ontario PC's are willing to support. I'm not questioning their good intentions. But you get the impression that it's not a conservative party they're representing, but a slightly-less-liberal party.

So what does the Family Coalition Party stand for?

Read its Contract with Ontario and find out.

Pro-life. Pro-Family. Smaller government. More competition.

Who could ask anything more of a right-wing party?

Is it worthwhile to support a smaller party, one might wonder.

Let me turn that question around: is it worthwhile to support a big, liberal-lite party?

What is the point if the whole culture of the party is geared towards watering down what it is supposed to represent.

Every party has to make some compromises.

But to the degree that they virtually no longer represent what they're supposed to?

Don't waste your time with a party that doesn't respect your beliefs. Build up Family Coalition for a real alternative.

A litter competition never hurt.

Sign the online petition to repeal Section 13

Sign here.

You'll get a message about donating after you submit your signature. At that stage your signature has been accepted and you don't have to donate.

Spread the word. Let's try to get as many people as possible to sign.

A fetus is a human being. That’s a scientific fact

I thought I would reply to some comments on my blog with another posting because I want to write at length about this topic.

In response to my contention that it is a scientific fact that fetuses are human beings, Logically Speaking wrote:

Biology has no distinction for "human being". Human fetuses are certainly human, but the concept of "human being" pertains to the concept of personhood - this does not fall under any discipline of science. You hurt your own argument when you purposely or unintentionally use incorrect language.

“Human” and “human being” are synonymous in our language.

For example, if you look at the definition of “human” from Merriam-Webster, you will get:

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
Date: circa 1533

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man ; broadly : hominid
— hu•man•like \-mən-ˌlīk\ adjective

And then you look up “human being”, you will get:

Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
Date: 1751


So, in the English language, “human” and “human beings” are synonymous. They refer to any member of homo sapiens.

And my contention has always been that fetuses are homo sapiens, or, in plain English—human beings.

Logically Speaking of course is trying to say that biology does not address the issue of personhood. He is relying on the ambiguity of the English language to make his point.

It is true that biology does not address philosophical issues.

But in stating “the fetus is a human being” I am not trying to address that philosophical issue.

I am trying to state a scientific fact. I want to establish that abortion takes a human life. I also want to underscore how some supporters of abortion attempt to deny, distort or re-write the laws of science in order to make their moral case.

Abortion supporters would be far more honest if they stated the simple truth: abortion kills a human being.

That is, abortion kills a member of homo sapiens.

Some of them are honest and will state that fact.

And many will not.

They are not proud of that fact. They want to hide that fact because they want to sustain abortion’s cultural and political acceptability.

If you examine the speech surrounding pro-aborts’ attitudes towards the unborn, you will see a lot of mental gymnastics. It’s almost like in their minds, first they conclude that abortion is acceptable, then they draw their conclusions about the unborn. They cannot examine the unborn dispassionately and on a scientific basis, because it would put into jeopardy the legal bases of abortion, because it is objectively and easily provable, using the laws of science that a fetus is a human being.

A fetus is an organism. That is easily provable. It is a self-circumscribed entity with replicating DNA that takes in nutrients, grows, and has locomotion.

So the question becomes: what kind of organism is it?

As per the law of biogenesis, when two members of the same species reproduce, their offspring is always a member of that same species. Every born human being on this earth was once a fetus. Organisms do not change species.

Ergo, a fetus is a human being.

This is not “opinion”. This is scientific fact based on well-established laws. The best sign that something is a scientific fact is that it is always predictable. As I said, every human being was once a fetus. This shows that fetushood (to coin a word) is a stage in the life of every human being. It’s not some alien or non-human entity. It is a human being.

When pro-aborts attempt to refute these points, they use the ambiguity of the English language to make refutation based on language, not on facts. For instance, if you say “a fetus is a human”, they will say “a skin cell is human, too”. They see the word “human” and substitute the intended meaning of the first phrase, i.e. a member of homo sapiens, with a second meaning of the word, i.e. something that is common to human beings. In effect, they attempt to change the subject, whether they realize it or not.

The other thing they do is substitute arbitrary standards for scientific ones. For instance, it is commonly stated that fetuses cannot be human beings because they do not have the features or abilities of an adult human being.

That would be a good way of distinguishing one type of species from another. It’s perfectly legitimate to say that a cat is not a bird because it has no feathers or that a dog is not a fish because it has no gills.

But an entity cannot be of two species. A caterpillar and a butterfly are two very different creatures, but they are of the same species. They represent different life stages of a butterfly. The same with tadpoles and frogs. If a living entity goes through different life stages looking completely different, then those differences are simply part of the characteristics of that species. So fetushood is just part of every human’s existence.

In response to this assertion, Gorgon writes:

You are wrong. It is not a fact, scientific or otherwise. It is an opinion. It happens to be YOUR opinion. It is NOT MINE

Another problem with debating supporters of abortion—many of whom have a left-wing, post-modern view of the world—is that their minds are so imbued with relativity that there is no such thing as a standard with them. You can’t measure, criticize, evaluate or test anything that they say or is being said because “it’s only your opinion” i.e. “it’s all relative”.

In real life, nobody lives as if all information and all morals are relative. You cannot. Implicitly, at the very least, everyone has standards, with the exception of psychopaths.

However, pro-aborts do not want to put submit their beliefs about the fetus for evaluation. For one thing, it would be politically unwise. For instance, one might believe, as I do, that a fetus is a human being. Another might not. Another might say that a fetus is a human being under some circumstances, and not others.

They would, eventually, clash on the subject. And it would reveal their ideological weakness. For instance, what if one pro-choicer wants an unborn victims of crime bill—because she believes a wanted fetus is a human being-- but another does not—because she believes a fetus is not. That would raise all kinds of questions. And in raising those questions about the real nature of the fetus, pro-choicers would be putting forward opinions about his nature that could be evaluated in the light of science. Mary Talbot—the woman who spearheaded the effort to pass an unborn victims of crime bill-- supports abortion in the first trimester, but she believes that her daughter’s 27-week-old fetus was her grandson. What does the light of science have to say about that? Sure, some might say that it is *her opinion*, and they may not believe that Lane Talbot was her grandson, but the truth is, science can shed some light on those biological relationships. Shedding light on those biological relationships and the nature of the fetus is not something the pro-abortion community is comfortable with. They know that you can’t just say “it’s YOUR opinion” when it comes to science, because science is based on observation and established standards that are in turn based on predictable consequences.

The political acceptance of abortion is based on the supposed “lack of consensus” of the nature of the fetus. If facts are established about the fetus, a social consensus would result. If the scientific community comes out and say “a fetus is a homo sapiens”, then the pro-abortion community would have to accept that consensus or risk being deemed anti-rational.

And when that consensus becomes more evident, pro-lifers would be able to evaluate, criticize and argue about it. Instead of having people just say “it’s all relative”, people who support abortion would be forced to defend their views on the fetus.

Based on standards, that is, of science.

Science has objective and has verifiable laws. Even though pro-aborts do deny, distort and re-write the laws of science to justify abortion, their revisionism could only go so far, as it would, eventually, conflict with laws of science that have nothing to do with the abortion issue, because all scientific truths are related. For instance, it is still commonly believe by some less educated individuals that a fetus is a blob of tissue. That myth was widely vehicled throughout the 1980’s to gain acceptance of abortion. Of course that’s not true and the propagation of the ultrasound refuted that belief. Look at any fetus. Eyes, nose, mouth, hands, fingers, limbs, lungs, hearts—these are not the features of a “blob of tissue”.

So it is important to hash out the science. If a serious discussion or debate on abortion is to take place, the science must be made clear.

A fetus is a human being. That’s a scientific fact.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

From the GAP FAQ: Q1. What is the connection between the Holocaust against the Jews, the lynching of blacks, and abortion?


A1. At the time the Holocaust happened, were the Jews considered to be valuable human beings equal to Aryans? At the time blacks were lynched, were they considered deserving of the same rights as whites? Today, as abortion occurs, the unborn are considered inferior to the born. In each of these cases then, there is a vulnerable class of people targeted for killing.

Societies that commit and permit genocide begin the atrocities by dehumanizing the victim class, calling them non-persons, parasites, cockroaches, sub-human, animals, etc. In Germany, the Nazis made it lawful to kill Jews. In the United States, slave owners and racists made it lawful to enslave and even kill black people. In Canada, the Supreme Court has permitted the killing of the unborn throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Although the atrocities are not identical, there is a strong similarity: huge numbers of dead victims who have been denied their personhood on the basis that they are a burden and/or have something that is useful to the rest of society.[i] Jews were considered responsible for the social ills in Germany, and yet the Nazis also considered this burden to be a benefit: the Jews had bodies that the Nazis used for medical experiments. Whites considered blacks useful for slave labour yet when they became a nuisance they would lynch them. And today in Canada, the unborn are often deemed a problem (unwanted, unplanned pregnancies) and yet society is now finding a supposed benefit from the burdensome group through embryonic stem cell research.

Smart Girl Politics: A social networking site for conservative women

Please join. Invite all your right-wing women friends to do so, too.

Cardinal on Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuality: We're Not Allowed the Cowardice of "Politically Correct" Silence

"A page of the inspired book that no human authority can force us to censor"

By John-Henry Westen

BOLOGNA, November 25, 2008 ( - Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the former Archbishop of Bologna who last year was selected by Pope Benedict XVI to preach the papal Lenten retreat, has authored a new book in which he addresses, among other things, the question of homosexuality. In 'Sheep and Shepherds', Cardinal Biffi notes that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is explicit and Christians are not "allowed, if we want to be faithful to the word of God, the pusillanimity of passing over it in silence out of concern of appearing 'politically incorrect.'"

The Cardinal's book is replete with references to the Sacred Scriptures, with which he makes his case that the societal acceptance of and spread of homosexuality is both "the proof and the result of the exclusion of God from collective attention and social life, and of the refusal to give him due praise."

In a chapter on The Challenge of Chastity, Cardinal Biffi writes:

"The exclusion of the Creator leads to the complete derailment of reason:

"'They became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools' (Romans 1:21-22).

"As a result of this intellectual blindness, both theory and behavior have fallen into complete dissoluteness:

"'Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies' (Romans 1:24)

"And in order to prevent any misunderstanding or any convenient interpretation, the Apostle continues with a striking analysis, formulated in perfectly explicit terms:

"'Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper' (Romans 1:26-28).

"In fact, Saint Paul is careful to observe that extreme abjection occurs when 'they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them' (Romans 1:32)."

The Cardinal acknowledges the modern day pressures on Christians to remain silent on the subject; however, he notes that these quotes are "a page of the inspired Book that no human authority can force us to censor."

Rather than be silent, Cardinal Biffi says, "We must instead point out the singular relevance of this teaching of divine Revelation: what St. Paul identified in the culture of the Greco-Roman world prophetically demonstrates its correspondence with what has taken place in Western culture in recent centuries: the exclusion of the Creator - to the point of proclaiming grotesquely that 'God is dead' - has had the consequence, almost as an inevitable punishment, of the spread of an aberrant sexual ideology, with an arrogance unknown to previous times."

The 256-page book "Pecore e pastori. Riflessioni sul gregge di Cristo", is available in Italian only. Here:

(translation of text courtesy of Sandro Magister )

The U of C pro-lifers have what we need: GUTS

I love this.

Faced with censorship of their ideas, the University of Calgary pro-lifers are standing their ground and refusing to stop showing the truth about abortion.

If more pro-lifers had guts like them, we would make a lot of waves.

The standard line against the Genocide Awareness Project is that abortion cannot be compared the Holocaust.

But that's not the comparison the GAP is trying to make.

The statement they are trying to make is that human beings are dehumanized to justify their large-scale slaughter.

Whether it's through a public campaign, like the Rwanda Genocide, or a secret government operation like the Holocaust, or the private initiative of individuals, is moot.

The point is: that when a society feels the need to kill other human beings, they dehumanize them first.

We all know that the unborn are human beings. The only people who dispute that are those who are completely ignorant of biology.

Those who are knowledgeable about biology react with a "so what?" when pro-lifers point out the fact.

As if human life was of relative value.

All of these mass killings of the past were based on a kind of supremacy. It's no different with today. Feminists argue that they are supreme, and the rights of the unborn, if they exist, must not interfere with their rights.

We need the guts to stand up to this supremacy.

Monday, November 24, 2008

The best advertizement against abortion comes from those...

who've been involved in abortion.

I love nothing more than when an abortionist (or anyone dealing with abortion) talks about their experiences. Because it's not the uplifting, liberating experience that feminist ideology depicts. It's an ugly, destructive, cold-hearted "procedure".

Pro-Abortion Med Student Shrinks away from Practice after "Disturbingly Brutal" Procedure

By Kathleen Gilbert

BALTIMORE, November 24, 2008 ( - Though she had practiced the procedure as a student at the University of Maryland School of Medicine by scraping out a piece of fruit with razor-sharp abortion instruments, Lesley Wojcik learned that her training could never have prepared her for a real abortion.

What caught her off-guard, says the second-year med student, was the brutality of a procedure that subjects women to extreme pain.

In a Washington Post article detailing her journey to become an abortionist, Wojcik describes how during her first witnessed abortion, she recoiled in horror as the mother began letting out blood-curdling screams. The woman, who was "in obvious pain," had been only partially sedated, and the ordeal was so disturbing that Wojcik says she nearly vomited.

She later discussed with her mother how the brutality of the abortion procedure affected her, noting particularly the stretching of the vagina.

"It's a lot more invasive than I thought," she said, recalling her earlier abortion "practice" involving the removal of the insides of a papaya. "A papaya doesn't bleed and scream."

Wojcik's advocacy of the "right" to abortion was what had driven her to attempt specializing in the procedure, as she was concerned about a growing shortage of abortionists. At first, she had been confident she would have no trouble carrying out the procedures. "It's walk the walk, instead of talk the talk. I want my actions to be consistent with my words," she had said.

After witnessing abortions herself, however, Lesley concluded that it would take a "unique" person to commit abortions on a daily basis. Despite turning down the abortion trade, Wojcik remains an abortion advocate.

Georgette Forney of Silent No More, a campaign dedicated to revealing the sufferings of post-abortive women, said that Wojcik described the reality usually silenced by the media.

"We can't talk about the gruesome procedure, but we can talk about how she has a right to that gruesome procedure," she said.

Forney, who herself had an abortion at 16, said that abortion is usually very painful, and women are often not sedated. In either case, she noted, "it's a traumatic thing to have your legs up in stirrups and have basically a vacuum cleaner inserted between your legs. There's no preparation for it, and it feels like you've been violated internally, like someone has vacuumed out your soul."

The Post article also chronicles Wojcik's encounter with another abortion, where she watched the abortionist count the dismembered parts of an aborted fetus to ensure complete removal. She said that part didn't faze her, as to her the limbs appeared "doll-like."

"It was definitely gruesome," she said. "You could make out what a fetus could look like, tiny feet, lungs, but it didn't look like a person."

Wojcik also described the "surreal" realization that she had fought to save premature babies who were just as mature as one nearly aborted.

Forney described Wojcik's reaction as that of someone forced to "to go into her own form of logic."

"Everybody likes to talk theory, everybody likes to talk politics and politicians, but abortion doesn't happen to the politician, it doesn't happen in the Supreme Court - it happens in a clinic to a woman, and that woman's voice is the one we need to hear from," Forney said.

More from the Washington post article:

The kind of doctor Lesley Wojick aspired to be stood at a lectern at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, issuing tough challenges to the young medical students who had gathered to hear her on a cold Saturday.

You think you are pro-choice, Carole Meyers was saying. But, really, "how pro-choice are you? What does it mean for you? What's your limit? Will you do an abortion on a woman who is 12 weeks pregnant? Twenty-four weeks pregnant?"

What's your limit with birth defects? she asked. "Would you do an abortion at 28 weeks if the baby had a club foot? How about hemophilia?"

Meyers, a 51-year-old obstetrician and genetics expert, has performed hundreds of abortions over the course of her career and, until earlier this year, served as the medical director of Planned Parenthood of Maryland. She loves her work -- it's very rewarding, she said, and women always thank her -- but she doesn't shrink from examining abortion's ethical dilemmas or from setting her own limits. The truth, she told Lesley and the other medical students, is that abortion is not a black-and-white issue, not for patients and not for doctors.

Not black and white? Impossible. Her body, her choice say the feminists, whether the abortion is done at 5 weeks or 35 weeks, and anyone who doesn't believe that is a misogynist.

So, if you truly believing in providing choice for women, then you should be able to do an abortion at 35 weeks, if need be.

No questions asked. Just do it. It's the woman's decision.

Like Meyers, she had never been afraid to reveal doubts. She wanted to think about complicated questions,


Now why on earth would abortion be complicated? It's the woman's body. That's it. That's what the feminists have been saying for years. Is someone actually challenging feminist dogma?

What complicated questions? Oh, you mean like questions of life and death, and of the humanity of the unborn child? THOSE complicated questions, that we are supposed to ignore because they are irrelevant, and pose a conflict of rights between the woman and the unborn child?

Those complicated questions?

In her e-mail, Christina had hoped to attract participants by suggesting that they'd have fun learning the procedure: "You'll get the opportunity to be shown how to use manual vacuum aspirators using papaya models (apparently papayas bear a striking resemblance to a uterus. Who knew?)" But some of the students who received the invitation didn't see it that way. "This is a serious matter," one told Christina. Those offended by her tone demanded to be dropped from any future Medical Students for Choice e-mails. After consulting a dean, the women didn't remove any names from their list, but they decided to word future missives more carefully.

Learning to kill unborn children-- so much fun!!!

Lesley's eyes were drooping as she, Christina and Regina set out tortillas and taco fixings in a second-floor classroom and assembled papayas and abortion instruments at stations in a lab next door.

Nothing builds up hunger like learning how to kill.

"This is so cool," said Lesley, who believed she was doing something important to address the shortage of abortion doctors. After years of defending abortion rights, she would finally learn how the procedure is done.


Now it was the students' turn to try the procedure in the lab next door. Imagining herself working on a real woman, Lesley looked tentative as she pushed up her sleeves and reached for the razor-sharp tenaculum.

"This just seems so awful," she exclaimed as she tried to grab the papaya with it. "Do [patients] feel this?"

Her look turned to fright when the nurse practitioner at her station answered that they do.

A real barrel of laughs.

There was silence as she passed around photos of a dish with a light under it from a real abortion. It contained something that looked like a cotton ball, a yolk sac, and some blood and tissue. It was hard to make out any parts of a fetus under 3 months old, which, she said, is when more than 90 percent of all abortions are performed.

Do you get the feeling they're being gypt in their education? They have to identify little fetal parts. Sure it looks pretty gelatinous when the provider takes it out of the cannister (I've seen it on television) but once you open up the amniotic sac and start digging, you can see full well there was a baby in there.

"The Vatican Forgives Beatles" Story is Ridiculous

This story has been bugging me all day.

The Beatles never said anything sinful to begin with. They made an observation that rang true. Saying the comment could be "written off" is not some kind of sacramental absolution, which is what some are casting it as. I wish the media would stop making up such goofy news articles.

The Osservatore Romano is not "The Vatican". That's like saying "The CBC" is "The Government of Canada".

And the Pope does not like Rock n Roll, although some of the Beatles songs have a Catholic feel to them, like Let it Be.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Joseph Ben-Ami on Queen's University's "intergroup dialogue program"

Queen’s University must think its students are all stupid. How else do you explain its new “intergroup dialogue program”?


The “intergroup dialogue program” instituted by Queen’s University, and more particularly the ease with which it and other initiatives like it are accepted these days – even defended – is symptomatic of a deeply anti-intellectual and undemocratic malaise infecting Canadian society. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, we are becoming a police state, where passions rule and reasoned debate is disdained; where thoughts are crimes and common sense is dismissed as the petty prejudice of the ignorant or naïve. The danger in this is not the intent, which is more often than not worthy, but the habituation to being told what and what not to say, think and do that sets in, and the construction of an apparatus of power to enforce those rules. No-one should suppose that democratic procedure can be an effective check on such arbitrary power. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in his classic essay The Road to Serfdom “It’s not the source, but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary.”

Indeed, the exercise of arbitrary power – confirmed by democratic process – is more insidious and more difficult to restrain precisely because it’s garbed in the robes of democracy.

Students at Queen’s University are not children – they’re adults who can control their own private conversations without the benevolent hand of an omnipresent, omniscient, and inevitably omnipotent thought police. They would be doing themselves and the rest of us a great favour by saying so quickly, before expressing objection to the policy is added to the list of offensive speech.

Connie Fournier Visits the CHRC office in Ottawa

I've worked in a few government offices in my life.

I've never seen anything like this...

Being greeted by a security guard behind bullet-proof glass?

What is the government afraid of? This isn't CSIS, or the RCMP or DND...

It's the Human Rights Commission.

I wonder what how those other agencies fare in comparison, with respect to how they greet visitors. That would be an interesting experiment.

Reprinted from Free Dominion:

Yesterday Mark and I drove all the way to Ottawa to take some paperwork to the CHRC. They have been stonewalling us since April on our Access to Information request for the files on Free Dominion and I had a document that I wanted to give them in person that would clear the way for them to fulfill our request.

We got to the building on 344 Slater St. and took the elevator to the 8th floor.

When we walked in, we did not encounter a receptionist like we expected. There was a security guard behind glass, instead. When I wanted to hand him the letter with my case number on it, I had to slip it through a little slot in the glass.

He directed us to sit in two chairs across from his station and he disappeared into the back. He came back out in a couple of minutes and told us that he had given the letter to someone who would pass it along until they found someone who could "give us an answer". I thought that was rather strange since I had already said that I just wanted to talk to Heather Throop and give her a document.

As we were waiting, we heard a huge commotion in the outside hall, which had been utterly deserted. A guy came barrelling down the hall with a cart loaded with files, grabbed an elevator, and disappeared. I turned to Mark and whispered, "There go our files".

A few moments later, a young, timid-looking girl came out and handed something to the security guard, whispered something to him, and then retreated quickly from our sight. I honestly thought the poor girl suspected we were wired with bombs!

The security guard then told us that Heather Throop wasn't in, but asked if we would like to talk to Deborah Cansick. I said that that would be fine because I have talked to her by email several times.

Mark and I stood waiting as the security guard walked out the back door of his booth and we prepared to go in to see Deborah Cansick.

To my utter astonishment, he, instead, picked up a phone in the waiting room, dialed a number, and handed it to me. I wasn't even allowed to see Deborah Cansick...I had to speak to her on a phone while she hid in another room!!

Well, to make a long story short, Cansick told me there was no point in giving her the paperwork I brought because they weren't planning on fulfilling my request.

I hung up the phone, took my letter back through the little hole in the window, and Mark and I left the office for the elevator. As we were waiting, an older woman and a guy with a bunch of earphones attached to him came and waited with us and got on the elevator as we rode down. I said to Mark later that it seemed like they appeared out of nowhere to make sure we actually left the building!

Both Mark and I were spooked by our experience at the CHRC. It was unlike any other government office we have ever seen. Talk about "faceless bureaucracy"! It is absolutely frightening that these people, who spend their days hidden behind a security guard and bulletproof glass, have the power to utterly destroy the lives of Canadians, and they don't even have to look their victims in the eyes.

George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Michael Jackson confirms that he has converted to Islam

The skint superstar, 50, donned Islamic garb to pledge allegiance to the Koran in a ceremony at a pal’s mansion in Los Angeles, The Sun can reveal.

I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre issues this leads to.

Horror Film, The Unborn, Scheduled to be Released in 2009

The Unborn (trailer here) is a movied scheduled to be released in 2009. (Wikipedia entry here).

A young woman finds out that she is a twin and her brother died in utero. The brother wants to be born and is slowly taking over the sister's body, like a demonic possession. There is even an exorcism scene (which sounds ridiculous to me).

Although I'm not keen on horror flicks, I think this is a positive step.The humanity of the unborn child is being acknowledged in our mainstream culture.

I have no intention of seeing it. But I do wonder if it'll change anyone's mind about having an abortion.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

No danger of any Section 13 complaints being laid against Big Blue Wave

Ezra Levant was recently acquitted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission of republishing Stephen Boissoin's controversial letter concerning the gay rights agenda.

He draws the conclusion that the reason why Stephen Boissoin was convicted and he wasn't, is that he is a Jew and the good pastor is a Christian.

That's nothing that we Christians didn't know.

On my blog, a commenter remarked of Evangelicals:

But where does that leave the people who embrace evangelical faith and accept no other authority, and subject all of their intellectual thoughts and explorations to that faith and interpretation?

The logical conclusion would be that it leaves them with a philosophical weakness - no matter how "intelligent" they might be, their thinking is stunted.

A whole group of people are essentially deemed stupid.

If that's not liable to cause contempt, I don't know what would.

Now, I don't begrudge the commenter in question. She says this is based on her experience.

Her experience had led her to believe that all Evangelicals are to one degree or another deficient in their ability to reason.

You can't argue with experience. If that's what you encountered, then it's natural that you have that view.

However, if some other group had been the target of that remark-- let's say gays, blacks or aboriginals-- to name three "pet" minority groups in the current system of political correctness-- my blog could be subject to a Section 13 prosecution.

Even if I don't support those remarks.

Try saying that blacks are intellectually deficient because of poor schooling or the culture of victimization; or that gays-- the militant ones-- are deficient in their reasoning because their minds are blinded by sin.

Don't go there.

I think it's very useful to have calm exchanges even in the face of very distasteful statements. I thought the comment Sarah Palin being unintelligent was prejudiced. My commenter did not.

So we had a calm exchange about intelligence, education, faith, Evangelicalism, evolution, science and so on.

I thought it was interesting and profitable.

But if the statements about Evangelicals had been suppressed, perhaps our discussion would not have gone in that direction.

Now if the same statement is made about blacks, aboriginals and gays, you could go down all kinds of interesting alleys in challenging those (or supporting) those statements.

What business does the government have in regulating our conversations on the net?

None. An offensive comment was made. It was challenged. We talked, no one's minds was changed, no one got hurt.

What the behaviour of the CHRC reflects is that their behaviour is not driven by a sense of justice, but by ideology. Freedom is not for everyone in their perspective. Only for certain groups. The rest have to atone for their transgressions against the dominant identity-driven and victimist ideology of the day.

If everyone was treated the same, that would at least indicate the Commission was somewhat sincere (although the HRC's would still be illegitamite). As it is obviously biased, it is not sincere in its quest for equality. It is a tool to impose thought control on the masses.

Novel: Harry and the Human Rights Violation, Chapters 4 and 5

I have just put up Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of my novel.

And in case you missed it, you can read the first three chapters here:

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3

VIDEO: The Wal-Martyr

The Do Not Call List...My Suspicions are Being Confirmed

Jafo's Journal posted a link to a CBC story about a scam that's going around, saying that the CRTC is releasing cell phone numbers to telemarketers.

I've read the comments, and I notice that many of them said that ever since they registered on the Do Not Call list, they've been getting MORE telemarketing calls, not fewer.

I am getting telemarketer call on my cell phone although I am on the no call list. the calling number is +10000000. I would really like to know id the crtc no call list is a scam.

I've not seen this email myself BUT YOU KNOW since I put my cell number on the do not call list I've been getting telemarketers calling it, first time in three years of having the same number. Coincidence? And they're sneaky too because their phone number comes up as all (000) 000-0000 and it's all automated and they don't say their name.

the DNCL doesn't work that way. It hasn't been hacked. The telemarketers are using the list illegally.

Georges Danton, answer the call from +1-000-0000, and gather some info from them. Don't give them any info (pretend to be interested just to get what you need out of them). I kept getting calls from 000-000-0000 (I'm also on the DoNoCall list) so I finally answered and they said "Hello, this is Imperial Majesty Cruise Lines"...funny because I have never had anything to do with cruise lines. I gathered enough info from the moronic idiot on the other end of the line to report them to the CRTC, who in fact did follow up and are investigating. Appears "Kelly Smith" is also getting this same call.

I completely agree with you...I also had not received telemarketing calls to my cell & fax numbers, but since registering on the DNCL I also get the same 1-000-000-0000 number weekly on ALL the numbers I added to list. A mere coincidence? I think NOT

I was wondering if anyone else out there in the blogosphere was having the same problem. This might be worth making some noise about.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The root cause of abortion

What is at the heart of many pro-lifers' opposition to contraception as a means to fight for abortion?

I have always taken a fetal rights approach to the pro-life effort. I assert that every human life, including that of the unborn, is intrinsically good.

But the contraceptive mentality takes the opposite view: that new life is a bad thing; a disease to be protected against.

And when that preventative measure fails, that "evil" must be eliminated.

This article explains it.

There is only one way to reduce abortion, and that is to reduce its cause, which is in the contraceptive mentality. And the contraceptive mentality can be reduced only by recognizing that procreation is good and by repudiating the attitude that endorses the violent negation of that good. It is surely illogical and unrealistic to try to establish a truly humane civilization where every human being has a right to live by beginning with the idea of reducing abortion, and remaining unconvinced that the natural and procreative consequence of sexual intercourse is a real good. We cannot restore the moral health of civilization merely by eliminating something that is bad; we can restore it only by loving and embracing what is fundamentally good. We begin to build a humane civilization not backwards from the charred remains of a burned-out civilization, but forwards from the realization that new life is a great good. The Russian existentialist philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev is right when he says, "If there were no child-bearing, sexual union would degenerate into debauchery."25 It is precisely the possibility of invoking new human life that raises sexual intercourse to a suprapersonal, transcendent level and gives to the married couple a focus for their commitment that is truly theirs and not something that belongs exclusively to one or the other.

Let us express it in another way. It is far more logical and realistic to revolutionize society by teaching men to be virtuous, since virtue is a perfection of something natural, than it is to effect the same revolution by being indifferent to virtue and trying to suppress the evil consequences of men's vices through technological interventions. This is not to say that virtue or civilized society come easily; in fact, their achievement demands the development and pooling of every gift men have (and then some). But it is to say that it is the only way that is logical and realistic. It was the essential insight of Huxley, Orwell, and others that the amoral technological approach produces a dehumanized social nightmare.


The HRC's are on crack. I wanna new drug. (Cue Huey Lewis)

H/T: Thanks Wally.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia

Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer.

We did this to show our solidarity with all who are resisting heterosexism everywhere, hopefully to spur them into action; and also because we are angry at the amount of money and propaganda that the Mormon church pumped into the homophobic Proposition 8 campaign. From their disgusting commercials to their despicable sermons to those gross lawn signs, we are sick of this parade of bigotry. The Church has to pay.


Love that PR! Violent anarchists trash people of faith for not kowtowing to the gay agenda. Bring it on, boys!

I had to laugh at this line:

We as anarchists are opposed to marriage but we see that this blatantly anti-gay act as a threat to all us gay, lesbian, transgendered and queer folk.

They don't even WANT marriage and they're upset.

Liberating our sexual fantasies and desires is dangerous to this rigid system, because free people enjoying themselves in a plethora of ways sexually will eventually want to enjoy themselves in other areas of life too, capitalism doesn’t want sexually liberated people because they ask too many questions and may not show up to work on time (or at all).

That is hilarious? Capitalism doesn't want "sexually liberated people"?

Tell that to pornographers.

They really believe that capitalists think that people won't show up for work if they don't engage in lewd acts?

That is the best line I've heard in a while.

No, people will show up for work, "sexually promiscuous liberated" or not, because they have to put food on the table.

Let this be a warning to the Mormon church, dissolve completely or be destroyed. The choice is yours..

This, of course, is for all people of faith.

The only way you will destroy the Church is to kill Christians.

Hint: that tends to backfire.

Why Polygamy Should Be Illegal: Nigerian man to divorce 82 wives

A Nigerian religious leader with 86 wives has accepted an Islamic decree ordering him to divorce all but four of them, local authorities say.

A spokesman for the emir of Bida told the BBC that Mohammadu Bello Abubakar, 84, agreed on Saturday to comply with the decree.

Last week one of Nigeria's top Islamic bodies, the Jamatu Nasril Islam, sentenced him to death.

The sentence was lifted but he was threatened with eviction from his home.

Sentenced to death for too many wives? That's just unreal.

The former teacher and Islamic preacher lives in Niger State with his wives and at least 170 children.

You read right. 170 children. You can't tell me that guy is being a dad to his kids.

Imagine if he lived in Canada. Imagine all the custody arrangements, spousal support issues, court tie-ups. It boggles the mind.

That's the reason one marriage is between one man and one woman.

What is the Family Coalition Party All About? Read its Contract with Ontario

I am a proud member of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario.

Some wonder: what would make a person devote themselves to a small party?

I feel that the current political choices available in Ontario are sorely lacking. They do not represent my values at all. There are two predominant left-wing parties-- the NDP and the Liberals-- and one wishy-washy liberal-lite party-- the PC's.

In the Family Coalition Party, I have found my political home: Pro-life, pro-family, less government, lower taxes and less regulation.

I feel that the Family Coalition Party is the part that best represents the tenets of Natural Law.

Of all the parties out there, I would want this one to form a government, and I am confident it would live up to its convictions.

And in that vein, I would like to present the Family Coalition Party's Contract with Ontario. This is what a Family Coalition Party would do if elected.

1. We will not breach your trust and will uphold the truth;

2. We will govern according to moral principles, defending life, freedom and property;

3. We will defend the value and dignity of the human person, over and above material goods, ideologies and corporate entities;

4. We will defend the traditional family as the first government, where children are educated in knowledge, wisdom and responsibility;

5. We believe that any government above the family is delegated and must be chosen through fair and democratic elections;

6. We will maintain an optimum amount of government and avoid government duplication of what individuals, families, associations, groups and businesses can do;

7. We will maintain an optimum amount of government to greatly improve the economic environment, thus the standard of living of all, employment levels and wealth creation;

8. We will defend people's free will and their call to exercise it;

9. We will defend people's dignity created by employment;

10. We will provide the opportunity for people to fully develop their potential by self-employment;

11. We will provide an environment where competition and high standards will drive to excellence;

12. We will discourage government monopolies and corporate monopolies.

If you are from Ontario, and these are the values you would like to uphold in the Ontario political scene, please get involved! Ontario needs dedicated people such as yourselves to work towards those policies.

Take out a party membership.

You can be added to the Straight Thoughts newsletter.

Keep track of FCP bloggers at If you have a socially conservative blog, why not join?

Or keep track of blog headlines on the party's Twitter page.

Or visit the Party's website.

The Party is small now. With your help and energy, it can grow. If you like the Party's values and believe in personal initiative, self-reliance and marching to the beat of your own drum, this is the party for you.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

UK: Chloe survived being born at 23 weeks

The 1lb 2oz miracle — whose tragic twin Ellie died — came into the world just days older than the youngest-ever surviving premature baby.

Medics held out little hope after mum Michelle gave birth an astonishing four months early — a week BELOW the abortion limit.

Chloe stunned them.

Two months on, she is 2lb 2oz and already off a ventilator.


Abortionists kill babies this young. (See Here and here)

In the womb: this baby would have no rights,and in Canada, no legal recognition.

The fact that a baby lives off of a woman's placenta and inside her womb is an excuse not to give him rights.

Of course it's an excuse, they would say: it's her womb and her placenta.

Right. Like one human being's body is more important than another's.

They're BOTH important, that's why BOTH should be allowed to live.

The logic of abortion is the logic of inequality, the logic of weighing which human being is more important than some other human being.

Progressives thought they were past this. But now. They do it all the time with respect to abortion. The woman "owns" the womb, therefore she is more important.

And affirming the baby is a human being with rights amounts to saying that she is "less important".

As if human dignity were a zero-sum game.

Gives a whole new meaning to "abortion on demand"

A STORM of international protest is building over a Chinese ruling that a Muslim Uighur woman who is six months pregnant must have an abortion or lose her home.

Chinese authorities have ordered Arzigul Tursun, who is 26 weeks pregnant, to abort her unborn child because she has two other children.

She is under watch at the Municipal Watergate Hospital in Yining in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, which is populated heavily with Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking Muslim minority. Supporters are concerned a forced abortion at such a late stage could threaten Arzigul's health.


But how could that be? Abortion a threat to a woman's health?

Can't be.

Friday, November 14, 2008

French obstretrics magazine calls "medical" abortion a form of "triage" for unborn children

The French pro-life news gathering site Généthique reports that the November issue of the French journal Obstétrique has an article dedicated to abortion. Below is a loose translation of the Généthique webpage, which is in itself a summary of the article.

The authors regret that there is a conscience clause in the French abortion law, as this law was democratically voted to deal with a "public health problem". In effect, they are saying that doctors should not be able to avoid dealing with first-trimester abortions. (In French, there are different terms for different kinds of abortions).

Regarding "medical abortion", i.e. abortions for "medical issues" past the 12th week, the authors call them a form of "triage for unborn children" and "one of the eugenic practices that follows from a policy that does not deem it as such, and pretends to be a response to the demand of couples." In 2005, there were 6441 "medical" abortions in France, up 7.5% from 2004. (France has a whole agency dedicated to bioethical information/operations like this and keeps excellent statistics on abortion. If only we could have that in Canada!)

The authors are especially concerned about cases of Trisomy 21 aka Down Syndrome. In about 90% of the cases, the babies are aborted. They write that medical abortion for Trisomy 21 has become a eugenic practice agreed to by a large part of the population in the absence of a democratic debate on the topic.

Cleft lips and cleft palates are a major reason for "medical abortions" in France. They each respectively represent 8.3% and 7.8% of those abortions [in various regions of France, including Paris]. The authors write "we are far from a from an problem of a particuliar gravity recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis" which is what French law requires to have recourse to a medical abortion. They continue that this practice alludes to the arguments of Charles Richet, the "principal theoretician and promoter of eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century: why allow these children unworthy and incapable of living if we can avoid the crime of giving them birth? Science will one day be impartial and at peace; Science is like Nature, oblivious to all false pity."

The authors then speak out against terminology which they say is not the product of chance: "Quality of gametes", "quality of life", "quality child" (in French l'enfant de qualité). These terms leads consciences to adopt a "consumerist ideology that is applied to human beings". They conclude that if the the ability to choose this eugenic practice is an individual decision, it is public institutions that have made possible this mechanism.

In their opinion, [and get ready to choke] the decision taken by public authorities-- the reduction of assistance to handicapped people, the obligation of doctors to reveal the existence of a test for trisomy 21, etc-- are the fruit of...neo-liberalism, aka (in American-speak) neo-conservatism! Yes, neo-conservatism is to blame for the high rate of medical abortions [oh brother!] In plain English, the authors consider neo-liberalism to be defined as "everyone for himself" and that all human relations must be managed with a kind of "strategic rationality"-- where risks are evaluated and actions are taken to eliminate them. The most important feature of this ideology is to individualize and "psychologize" everything, especially those things that fall within the domain of values.

And because of this, the issue of the value of human life is not treated in its collective, even universal sense, but is left to each individual to appraise, according to his personal interests but only in the "psychoaffective dimension" (i.e. what he "feels"). "This confusion between the individual/collective plane and the interest/values plane can only create a perversion of meaning," which "in turn creates a misidentified suffering for both the couple and the caregivers." In other words, the people who are involved in the abortion project their suffering onto the baby because of their perverted values.[Somebody has been drinking the socialist Kool-Aid!]

For the doctor, the act of feticide creates a veritable act of suffering. "How can it be otherwise when we cause the death of a human being?" More and more, women are also speaking out about the suffering they endured because of abortions, both first-trimester ones and "medical" ones.

The authors denounce the trivialization of abortion, and the fact that these questions have slipped out of the hands of the medical field, and are the concerns of a category of abortion professionals.


It's interesting how they are so adamant in treating first trimester abortions as a response to an "authentic public health concern", but just rake second- and third- trimester abortion over the coals.

There's a bit of a disjuncture-- to say that only second- and third- trimester abortions are the product of a "consumerist" ideology, not first trimester abortions.

Still, a very eye-opening and useful article.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Conservative Party Delegates: Vote for Resolution P-203

This weekend, Conservative Party members will meet at a convention in Winnipeg. Among the proposals being put forward is stop the Human Rights Commission from investigating section 13 complaints. It reads as follows:

Modify HRC Jurisdiction


iii) The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I would like to voice my support for this resolution.

As it stands, I am not happy with the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper's regime. They've done a few good things, but on the whole, it's like they're afraid of being conservatives.

This is a no-brainer. This resolution should easily pass. And the party heads should seek to implement it.

I believe that someday, the left may successfully define "hate" as anything it opposes. If Conservatives do not vote to weaken the HRC's, they are basically shooting themselves in the foot. Conservatives ideas will be prosecuted under the guise of "human rights protection."

If the Conservative Party isn't going to act conservative, then I just won't support them. I've never been a keen supporter-- although I've given the odd donation. If they don't make me happy, they're not going to get to my money.

Smarten up Conservatives. Implement Resolution P-203. Tend to your base. Think of your future.

Here is a copy of a flyer that was created to be handed out to Conservative delegates.

The Rewards of the Socially Liberal Welfare State

From Pete Vere:

Today, the opposite is true. From no-fault divorce to abortion on demand, the government has institutionalized irresponsible behavior. The same is true with welfare, old age pensions and socialized health care that reward poor lifestyle choices by usurping responsibilities that previously fell upon the individual and the family. And yet we now wonder why our young people no longer grow into responsible citizens. The consequences of poor lifestyle choices are no longer poverty and social ostracism - conditions that in the past forced people to clean up their act and begin making responsible choices - but a lifetime meal card at the state's expense.

Therefore, if the conservative movement is going to revive itself, it must begin by restoring the rights and responsibilities of the family unit.

Another 'champion of abortion' becomes defender of life: the story of Sotjan Adasevic

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / 09:21 pm (CNA).- The Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported. “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,”

After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.”

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.” Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Silent No More visits Carleton University-- gets shoddy treatment

From David MacDonald:


* We were asked to not use a sound system. We didn’t even set it up.

* We were assigned a room by CUSA completely impractical for the nature of the event, and were given no options. We accepted that.

* We were asked to move to the back. We moved.

* We were moved because we had “booked later than the others” but the woman’s centre showed up and put a table in the middle of the Atrium without any reservation whatsoever, this was granted by the same man who moved because of “booking priorities.”

* Protesters showed up and met with the Booking Manager who gave them our spot although they had no reservation. The booking man said the Woman’s Center had permission from the NAFTA table to be there . The NAFTA rep said he never heard anything from anyone.

* When we videotaped this in action, they called the security and had all non-students removed by security ending the event. There is no law against videotaping in public places.

* The protesters stayed, the Carleton Lifeline table was moved to the back. No one from the Silent No More event was allowed to stay.

* The Security Guard said CUSA called him, CUSA denied, it apparently was the booking man who contacted security.

Moral of the story: bring a lawyer to these things. And a video camera.

US Bishops Approve New Blessing for the Child in the Womb

BALTIMORE, November 11, 2008 ( - In the wake of a US election that saw the most pro-abortion president in the nation's history take to the helm, US bishops are making a concerted effort to dam the pro-abortion tide. Affirming the sanctity of all human life has been a significant focus at the USCCB's 2008 Fall General Assembly, with the latest initiative being a proposed blessing for the unborn.

Although the results of the vote are yet to be released, a spokesperson for the USCCB told that there did not appear to be any opposition to the pro-life blessing.

The "Blessing of a Child in the Womb," was "prepared to support parents awaiting the birth of their child, to encourage in the parish prayers for and recognition of the gift of the child in the womb and to foster respect for human life within society," according to a USCCB release.

The blessing reads: "May almighty God, who has created new life now bless the child in your womb. The Lord has brought you the joy of motherhood: may he now bless you with a safe and healthy pregnancy. You thank the Lord today for the gift of your child: may he bring you and your child one day to share in the unending joys of heaven."

There is also an optional blessing for parish communities welcoming a newborn: "May God bless this parish community as it welcomes the gift of new life and joyfully accepts the responsibility of sharing in the spiritual formation of this child (or children)."

According to John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, in the discussions following the proposal, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville advocated the blessing, saying it is "a very tangible way to witness pastorally and sacramentally to the life of the unborn child," and the President of the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, said it was a "very moving blessing."

Bishop Michael Pfeifer went one step further, calling for a national Day of Prayer for the unborn.

Upon the approval of the Vatican the blessing will be added to the next edition of the Church's Book of Blessings, and will be available in English and Spanish.

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life commented on the blessing, saying, "It assists the whole Church to witness clearly to the reality of the unborn child as a person in our midst – a person whom the Church recognizes and to whom the Church ministers. In a Culture of Life, we treat persons in a way that their dignity requires. The children in the womb are our youngest brothers and sisters. By blessing them, we ourselves are blessed."

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

VIDEO: Sarah Palin interview with Greta van Susteren PART 1

Summary: she never asked for clothes. She doesn't think the clothes that were bought for her and her family amounted to $150K.

She never said Africa was a country.

She knew who was in NAFTA.

She never censored Harry Potter.

Do not trust people who say Sarah Palin is stupid. It's propaganda. It's rhetoric. They don't like her or her values, so they believe it and spread the smear.

I loved the interview. I would love for this woman to be President of the United States. She seemed poised and thoughtful.

H/T: Blue Star Chronicles.

On how killing is accepted

Conversion Diary, on past atrocities:

What litmus test could you offer that would apply to all places and all times as a way for a person to look around themselves with completely clear eyes, piercing through even the thickest fog of self-delusion and widespread cultural acceptance, and see that they are surrounded by grave evil? Is there any simple way for a person to immediately undergo an earth-rocking paradigm shift in which they look up and realize that the world around them is not what they thought it was?

One thing that stands out in all these examples is that the victims of the widespread evil were categorized as something less than human. In fact, though the exact level and degree of evil that took place may vary, one thing that unites all of these practices as worthy of a place in the Human Depravity Hall of Fame is not only that innocent people were killed or enslaved, but that their humanity was taken away by the societies around them. The Nazis classified their victims as sub-human, less worthy of life than the better members of the race; wives were burned with their husbands because they were seen as nothing more than property; in the 90's in Rwanda the media fueled the genocide by assuring citizens over and over again that Tutsis were not fully human, referring to them as insects rather than people; the Romans accepted it as a matter of fact that baby girls inherently had fewer rights to live than baby boys; and in early America enslaved men, women and children were accepted by both government and society at large to be barely above livestock in their dignity and worth.

So here is the advice I would offer to my children, and to my children's children:

Every decade or so, take a look around the society in which you live, and ask yourself if there is any group of human beings who are seen as something less than human. A big tipoff is if dehumanizing words -- terms other than "man," "woman," "child," "baby," or "person" -- are used to describe any category of people.

And if you ever see that going on, you might be in the midst of something gravely evil.

That a fetus is a human being is an obvious truth.

It's provable by science.

It's provable by logic.

Killing a fetus is also demonstrably wrong.

But the opponents of fetal rights refuse to consider it. It's all "religious dogmatism". That's their excuse for not examining the facts about the unborn child.

They play semantics. They try to make the fetus other than a human being. Or they try to make this kind of human being something other than a person.

As if there were different categories of human beings-- some being more equal than others.

The pro-life cause is based on simplicity. Simple language. Simple logic. Simple truth.

The pro-abortion movement needs "nuance" to make its case. I know, it makes them appear so intellectually sophisticated to be able to contend with "ambiguities" and "uncertainties" and to say that since we can't resolve these ambiguities and uncertainies,we might as well "respect everyone's opinion"-- as if you could respect the opinion that equal human beings should be killed.

They use the simplicity of the pro-life position to make its supporters look like simpletons.

But sometimes the truth is obvious and simple.

Killing innocent human beings is wrong. It's that plain.

Unfortunately, some people still haven't learned history's lesson yet.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Hospital Document Sheds Light on 3rd Trimester Abortions in Quebec

It is inevitable that in every online debate, some proponent of legal abortion will assert that third trimester abortions are illegal in Canada.

Of course, you challenge them to point to the law that says this. And being lazy, they simply make the re-assertion.

Well guess what? Third trimester abortions are legal in Canada. This document is proof. It is a report from the Bioethics Committee at Ste. Justine Hospital in Montreal. The title is: Interruption de grossesse du troisième trimestre pour anomalie fœtale. Or Third Trimester Abortion for Fetal Anomaly. It was published in January 2007. I decided to blog an off-the-cuff summary of the report, underscoring the most relevant information.It’s a long blogpost, but there is a lot of good information.

An interesting thing about the cover on the report. The report is about third trimester abortion, but the cover features a 10-week-old fetus.

The report was created in order to set guidelines for an institutional policy on the practice. The questions asked by the committee were:

Is it ethically acceptable to perform an abortion for fetal anomaly past the threshold of viability?

If yes, what should be the guidelines for this practice?

To answer these questions, the document explores many issues. The first one it addresses is terminology. French is rich in terminology for abortion. There is “interruption volontaire de grossesse” (IVG) which your run-of-the-mill abortion. Then there’s “interruption médical de grossesse » (IMG) which is an abortion with an underlying medical basis. And, a new one for me “Interruption thérapeutique de grossesse” (ITG) which is a medical abortion; sometimes used interchangeably with IMG, sometimes in situations where the mother’s health is at stake, and sometimes where there is a problem with the fetus.

The document specifies that the term “IVG” is preferred because it is less emotionally charged than “abortion”.

Now why would that be?

The next issue they explore is viability. The document clearly states:

Dans notre société, on effectue des interruptions de grossesse du troisième trimestre même lorsque le foetus est viable, ce qui soulève certaines préoccupations

Translation :
In our society, third trimesters are performed even when the fetus is viable, which raises certain concerns.

The report goes on to say that it went to interview the head of the Committee of prenatal diagnostics and the head of the Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology. They were the ones who made the request for the report. They informed the committee about the circumstances of third trimester abortions at the hospital. They went on to interview various other professionals affected by this practice.

They also spoke with social workers who had referred adolescent girls to get third trimester abortions in the United States.

The Committee also spoke with professionals who gathered together services in relation to third trimester abortions to provide a framework for the practice. The Committee also commended the hospital for having in place a palliative care service for the children of mothers who did not go through with the abortion.

Great idea. Now why couldn’t they push that instead of abortion?

The Committee met once in 2004 and once in 2005 to discuss contentious issues in order to reach a consensus. The final report was begun in autumn 2006.

The Abortion Situation at Ste. Justine Hospital

The document relates that Ste. Justine hospital essentially does abortions on teenagers in the first and second trimester, regardless of their reasons. After 20 weeks (LMP—that’s 18 weeks gestation), if the abortions are not of a medical nature, they are referred to other establishments. Some Quebec establishments perform abortions up to the 22nd week (LMP). If the pregnancy has progressed beyond that stage, the mother is sent to either New York State or Kansas. (And we all know that it’s Tiller’s clinic in Wichita that does late-term abortions).

In Montreal, it is the CLSC des Faubourgs that is responsible for co-ordinating and directing girls to US Clinics. The Ministry of Health and Social Services reserves a budget to cover the costs of these trips for the whole province. This budget must be used to cover the cost of terminating the pregnancy, according to the gestational age and the technique used. However, if the woman is too poor, the government will pay for food, lodging and transportation. The budget for incidental expenses—food, taxi, medicine—is $375.

At. Ste. Justine, they consider 24 weeks to be the threshold of viability. Third Trimester abortions can be requested at Ste. Justine, if there is a fetal anomaly.

There are many reasons why third trimester abortions are sought. Sometimes the fetal anomaly is only suspected in the second trimester, but confirmed in the third trimester. Some fetal anomalies only appear in the third trimester by their nature. Sometimes, it’s a question of “wait-and-see” to develop a prognosis. There may also have been a false negative in the earlier stages of the pregnancy. And sometimes a couple that has received news of a fetal anomaly in the second trimester only decides to terminate in the third trimester.

The Committee for fetal and neonatal death examines all files regarding third trimester abortions, and it asserts that almost all of them were due to a medical nature. (“Almost all”—I like that. I’d be interested in knowing which ones weren’t.) There are also some 3rd trimester abortions that are due to “precise situations” associated with particular “social” conditions. (In other words, not all 3rd trimester abortions in Canada are due to medical issues).

Jumping ahead…

When couples receive a negative prenatal diagnostic, they must meet the OBGYN at least twice in the 48-72 hours after first being informed. This is to prevent a hasty decision. The couple must be exposed to four choices:

1) Pursue the pregnancy and evaluate the child’s condition at birth.
2) Organize palliative care at birth
3) Place the child up for adoption
4) Terminate the pregnancy.

The procedure for expelling the fetus.

This part is very important. Many people think that Partial Birth Abortion is a common way of killing third trimester fetuses. As far as I know, this is not the regular method used. This document describes the one I have come across the most: a prostaglandin abortion using feticide (i.e. killing the fetus with an injection).

I am putting the original French text so that there is no confusion.

Les interruptions de grossesse du troisième trimestre ont lieu à la salle d'accouchement. Elles sont pratiquées sous échographie par un gynéco-obstétricien. On tient compte de la douleur physique de la femme enceinte, même si elle n’est pas propre au troisième trimestre. On pratique une analgésie péridurale. Quant à la souffrance du foetus, la question est très controversée. Avant de réaliser l’IG, on administre au foetus des produits anesthésiques (Fentanyl), afin de soulager sa douleur. Cette pratique contribue à la sérénité du couple, mais aussi à celle de l’équipe soignante. Cependant, notons que tous n’administrent pas de produits anesthésiques.

La procédure d’expulsion du foetus consiste en une injection de chlorure de potassium (KCl) intra-cardiaque ou intra-ombilical provoquant le décès du foetus avant son expulsion. L’opération se déroule comme un accouchement normal, c’est-à-dire avec des contractions et une délivrance par les voies vaginales. Il y a toutefois naissance d’un enfant mort-né. La femme est ensuite conduite dans une unité où on lui offre des soins post-partum, axés sur le deuil.

Translation :

Third trimester abortions take place in a birthing room. They are performed with ultrasound by an OB\GYN. The pregnant woman’s pain is taken into account, even if she has not quite reached the third trimester (unsure of translation). An analgesic epidural is performed. In regards to the suffering of the fetus, this question is very controversial. Before starting the termination, the fetus is given an anesthetic (Fentanyl) to relieve him of pain. This practice contributes to the couple’s serenity, but also to that of the treatment team. However, note that not all professionals administer anesthetic.

The expulsion procedure consists of an intra-cardiac or intra-umbilical injection of potassium chloride (KCL) [i.e. injected in the heart or umbilical cord] which causes the death of the fetus before his expulsion. The operation continues as a normal birth, that is, with contractions and vaginal delivery. Nonetheless, there is the delivery of a child born dead. The woman is then directed to a unit where she is given post-partum care, focused on grieving.

The Discomfort Surrounding This Practice

The Committee observed that some decisions did not upset the professionals at all and there is consensus on them, while others are debated. For instance, grave or lethal pathologies do not pose any problem; pathologies such as: when the patient is non-viable, severe neurological pathologies; when the consequences are very difficult and almost certain; issues involving kidney where there is no chance of survival; some chromosomal issues and certain genetic conditions. However, there is no consensus on third trimester abortions for Down Syndrome and Spina bifida (which, I might add, are among the most frequent reasons for late-term abortions).

It is the uncertain diagnoses that create a dilemma. Some professionals opt for abortion; others prefer pursuing the pregnancy and evaluating the situation at birth.

There is a sentence that is important that I’m not sure I understand. It says:

Selon un point de vue, la pratique des IG du troisième trimestre favoriserait une attitude interventionniste, ce qui augmenterait les demandes pour les interruptions de grossesse à ce stade.

If I understood the sentence correctly, it says that third trimester abortions favour an « interventionist attitude », which increases the number requests for abortion.

In other words, the doctor has to intervene to tell people about the possibility of abortion, offer it to them, which plants the idea of abortion in the couples’ head, when they otherwise would not have had the idea in the first place.

That is my understanding of the sentence, but I’m not completely sure.

In that “interventionist vein”, some fear the banalization of abortion—making it routine and everyday. Others fear the spectre of eugenics.

Other professionals fear that the request for third trimester abortions is a reaction to the lack of services for handicapped children.

On the other hand, some fear that those reactions might limit access to abortion.

The document goes on to explore various ideas and attitudes about abortion and the fetus, according to various religions and the various historical periods.

The document relates some interesting information, which I did not know.

The Quebec Civil Code recognizes the fetus as a juridical person if he is born alive and viable. The document states that since aborted fetuses are never born alive, they never achieve any kind of juridical status.

The problem is that, of course, that’s not always true. It is possible for a third trimester fetus to survive a botched abortion and breathe.

The survival of a fetus from a botched abortion could raise possible legal issues of legal succession and transmission. It would have to relate to a very particular situation. But it’s not impossible.

The document goes on to say that the pace of prenatal testing has far outstripped our ability to treat the unborn child. It also cites, without context, a disturbing quotation from a bioethicist:

Rochefort38 mentionne que le diagnostic prénatal est maintenant considéré comme un « droit légitime » qui permet de donner naissance à un enfant normal. Il ajoute que l’ « … utilisation (de cette technique) est un devoir qui sous-tend une attitude responsable évitant de donner naissance à un enfant handicapé. »


Rochefort mentions that prenatal diagnostics is now considered a “legitimate right” that permits to give birth to a normal child. He adds that “the use (of this technique) is a duty that implies a responsible attitude of avoiding giving birth to a handicapped child.”

As this comes from a hospital, that is chilling. “Avoiding giving birth to a handicapped child” is a “responsible attitude”?

Margaret Sanger anyone?

Recommendations (The most relevant ones)

6.1 That third trimester medical abortion is acceptable when there is a strong possibility that the unborn child suffers from a recognized serious fetal anomaly that is known to be incurable at the time of diagnosis.

This recommendation expands the number of weeks that Ste. Justine performs abortion. Up until then, had a very limiting policy on third trimester abortion.

6.2 That medical and paramedical structures regarding third trimester abortions be put in place in order to adequately respond to the needs of the woman (or the couple).

6.3 That the diagnostic process and the announcement of the diagnosis take place with respect and humanity. (Except for the unborn child, of course).

6.4 The the woman’s (or the couple’s) decision be free, enlightened and supported throughout the process.

Here’s an interesting sub point:

6.4.10 qu’un soutien psychologique soit accessible aux intervenants, dans des situations particulièrement difficiles à vivre.

That psychological support be accessible to interveners, in situations that are difficult to experience.

6.5 Humanize the end of life, in the event of the woman (or the couple) choosing to proceed with an abortion.

Interesting sub-paragraph:

6.5.1 que le protocole des IG du troisième trimestre soit appliqué et que l’on s’assure d’éviter toute souffrance au foetus, advenant la décision de procéder à une interruption de grossesse ;

Translation :

That the protocol for third trimester abortions be applied and that it is assured that the fetus avoids all suffering., in the event to proceed with an abortion.

Don’t try to legislate that though. That’s crazy talk!

No word on whether the recommendations of this report were implemented.