Wile E. Ignatieff: Genius

From my latest (and last column) at NoApologies.ca:

But like that self-vaunted genius, Wile E. Coyote, the former Harvard professor was not about to give up in spite of the obvious futility of his efforts. Smug with his own shrewdness, he would try to outsmart that rascally Prime Minister by pinning him down on the abortion issue with a motion on “reproductive rights.”

A motion that came back to pound him on the head like an anvil.

(I had to resign-- I don't have much time to write any more. But I'm so glad I got a chance to write a column.)

Abortioneer Wonders: Why Shouldn't Teenagers Be Able to Make Abortion Decisions By Themselves?

While musing on the subject of parental consent and notification laws regarding abortion, Revolutionary Vagina wonders:

Do parents really have a right to know? What is it about being a parent that allows you to control every move and decision your child makes? It's not like abortion is illegal (I don't want to hear the argument about if the parent being held responsible if a minor engages in illegal activity - which I don't think is necessarily true). Aren't teens people? I know they're not legal adults, and many if not most or all of them have growing up to do. But why can't they at least have autonomy over their body? Why do parents get to control that? Isn't that weird or wrong to anyone? I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I really don't understand. The pregnant girl/woman is ultimately the person who has to live with the decision that is made, so why can't she make it without interference?

Anyone want to bet this person does not have children?

The reason why parents are notified about their children's doings is twofold:

1) Parents are in charge of their child's well-being.

2) Adolescents do not have the knowledge, wisdom, maturity or experience to make a decision about abortion.

Many people like to imagine that children under the age of 18 are mature. We thought of ourselves as mature when we were children, right?

So why wouldn't we allow our own children the courtesy?

Because the reality is: they are not.

Teens do not have the foresight to know what will happen if they take one decision or another. They are often impulsive. Their knowledge of the world is imperfect and often subject to superficial standards.

That's why they have parents: to fill the gaps and ultimately make decisions for their kids, or approve of the ones the kids have made.

Since parents are in charge of their child's well-being, they have the right to know EVERYTHING about their child's life. That doesn't mean some privacy is not in order. But if a kid is not on the right path, a parent has a right to intervene.

Let's play devil's advocate and suppose I am a parent who supports legal abortion, and my teenager becomes pregnant.

Why would I want to be informed of my daughter's impending abortion?

Because I want to have the conversation about the pregnancy and conception!

Perhaps she doesn't really want an abortion, but she feels pressured.

*What about her sexual activity? Was it with a steady boyfriend, a one-nighter or was she maybe even raped? Was she drunk or sober? (I.E. should I discourage or even prohibit her from consuming alcoholic beverages?) Was she using contraception? Did she want to use contraception? What about her boyfriend? Was he pressuring her to have sex? If I don't know the dad: who is this guy, and how did she meet him, and (if he's a shady) how did you end up with such a loser?

See, if a girl has an abortion, it's because her life, in some sense, ran into the ditch.

You as the person in charge of your child's well-being, NEED to know that-- whether you support legal abortion or not.

And because you, as the parent, know what is best for your child, you should consent to any medical procedure.

But wait, feminists demand: what about the so-called forced pregnancy aspect?

The answer is that if feminists want to treat abortion as a medical procedure, then they have to apply the same rules.

But the truth is, abortion is not a true medical procedure. It does not heal or treat any condition. If it were, it would not be so controversial. No parent wants their kid to be sick.

It's simply a procedure in response to personal problems.

Operations don't and shouldn't be used to treat personal problems. A physical problem requires a physical solution. A psychological problem requires a psychological solution.

A social problem requires a social solution.

Still Busy

So sorry for the absence. I have been extremely busy with a bunch of stuff. I really miss blogging.

Please continue to read the blogs in the sidebar. Lots of good stuff there.

Fr. Raymond de Souza on the Sex Abuse Scandal

I would like the Church's detractors to pay attention here, because in this paragraph, Fr. de Souza explains why such things were allowed to go on:

In the 1960s, like much of society and after the Second Vatican Council, the Church simply abandoned her disciplinary life. Doctrinal dissent was not corrected, but often celebrated. Liturgical abuses, both minor and outrageously sacrilegious, were tolerated. Bishops simply stopped inquiring into priestly asceticism, prayer and holiness of life. Non-Catholics often have an image of the Catholic Church as a ruthlessly efficient organization with a chain of command that would make the armed forces jealous. The reality for most of the 1960s to 1980s was the opposite. A priest could preach heresy, profane the Holy Mass, destroy the piety of his people and face no consequences. The overseers decided to overlook everything. It is any surprise, then, that when accusations of criminal immorality emerged they too were dealt with inadequately, if at all?

Pope Benedict, in his bluntly-worded letter to Irish Catholics last week wrote that the bishops “failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse.” Too many bishops weren’t Catholic enough. They failed, for example, to follow the clear direction of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that a cleric who commits sexual sin with a minor “is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.”

A culture of laxity had so infected bishops that their disciplinary muscles had severely atrophied. It was not as if they were vigilant rulers in all aspects, but perversely indulgent of sexual abuse. Indulgence was shown to abuses of all kinds. So latitudinarian had the clerical culture become that even modest attempts at doctrinal discipline were widely mocked — or do we forget that the progressive press, inside and outside the Church, calling Joseph Ratzinger “God’s Rottweiler”?

Fr. De Souza seems to imply that lax period ended in the 1980s. No Father, it is still very much with us.

It is my hope that as the hierarchy is spanked on this-- albeit, at times, unfairly-- that it slaps some sense into the heads of the Church elites and makes them realize that canon laws are there for a reason. The Church is not a big campfire where we sing "Kumbaya" and feel good about each other.

The sex abuse scandal and the Development and Peace scandal have the same roots: a cavalier attitude towards church laws and divine revelation.

Pro-abort debunks a number of pro-abort lines on abortion

Such as:

--No woman wants to have an abortion.

--Every woman who chooses abortion does so with sadness, or finds the decision very difficult.

--No woman has an abortion casually.

--Abortions in the second trimester are only done for "serious" reasons.

--If we all had full access to contraception, there would never be any abortions.




One pro-abort line that she does uphold is that abortion is not a "brutal" procedure.

She treats abortion like "any other procedure"-- as if the blood and guts of an appendectomy were the same things as the dismembered body of a fetus.

I also like how she evades describing the real nature of "partial birth abortion".

She says-- accurately-- that abortionists don't that term and other terms-- such as "baby" or "abortion doctor".

But the people don't speak in medicalese. Rhinoplasty is a nose job. Hemorrhaging is bleeding. A D & X is a partial birth abortion.

I'm all for information. But it seems that people who support abortion run from actually informing people about the gritty details.

Antonia Zerbisias: Full of Crap

Her column is entitled:

Conservative pro-life stand will kill women by the thousands

Really?

As if the fact that the Conservatives won't fund abortion is what kills women?

Not lack of obstetric care.

Not the woman's own hand, who goes out and, probably contrary to her own intelligence, takes an abortion pill blindly?

Yeah, that's all the Conservatives' fault.

Here's a question:

Are women in the Third World imploring us to provide abortions?

No. It's white, middle-class women like Antonia Zerbisias who wants to impose her anti-fetal rights views on the Third World.

What will save women from abortion is

1) Don't have them and
2) Good obstetric care.

And so, no matter how much research Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs presented, Conservatives countered with their talking points about "health care, clean water and basic nutrition."

Just completely ignore the fetal rights debate, Antonia. Insult the target population you wish to help by calling these brown people "fetus fetishists" for wanting to protect unborn life and not wanting abortion. Go ahead. Be intellectually consistent.

Worse, even though the motion never mentioned abortion, there were repeated Conservative cries about "reopening the abortion debate."

How disingenuous. Had it passed, the Liberals would have used it to push abortion. Typical feminist subterfuge-- talk about "reproductive services" but be really vague about what that means.

So, in the end, women lost – and Conservative ideology won.

No Antonia you lost. Do not conflate "women" with the people who share your ideology. Millions of Canadian women oppose this motion.

How many women will die as a result of their political end run around sound medical practice?

The answer: ZERO. It was a motion. Nothing the MP's did or did not do will have ANY effect.

And they talk of being "pro-life."

Can you be a little more disingenuous? As if supporting clean water, better nutrition and good medical care isn't pro-life. As if opposing fetuses being killed isn't pro-life.

Take your ideological blinders off.

Pot Growers Oppose Legalization

Because they're criminals, that's why.

That’s right. Legalize pot and lose jobs. The pot growers are afraid that if it is legalized, agri-business will move in and takeover. Humboldt County is considered part of the “Emerald Triangle” and home to some of the best marijuana in the world.

Lovely. "Big Pot". Just as we're trying to get rid of Big Tobacco.

Christopher Hitchens: Full of Crap

Read the whole thing:

Crimen Sollicitationis did not threaten excommunication of people who revealed "rape and torture" of children by priests. On the contrary: it imposed not only a duty to denounce such crimes (and the lesser offence of solicitation) to the bishop, but the automatic excommunication of anyone who knowingly failed to do so.24 The goal was to ensure that clerical misconduct which, by its nature, was likely to occur in private, did not remain secret and unpunished.25

And read more about the case of Peter Hullerman, the priest who settled in the diocese of Munich for therapy during Pope Benedict's tenure as Archbishop.

A Pro-Abort Speaks

Bob R from Irondog:

I am pro abortion. No not just pro choice, but pro abortion. Yes, there are many circumstances where, in my neophyte opinion, abortion is optimal. Abortion is a perfectly honrable way to end an unwanted or difficult pregnancy, to preserve one's goals, or just. . .because. I am committed to lifting whatever, and entirely undeserved, shame or stigma that is associated with the procedure. I am committed to making sure it accessible to all women without interruption, justification, or apology.

...

Somebody I met gave birth to a Down syndrome child who is also afflicted with other issues. What that family has gone through emotionally, financially, and other lost opportunities is enormous. Do I think they are heroic? Hell no, I think they are selfish morons.

Yeah, allowing a child to live, loving and taking care of him, so darn selfish!.

By the way, Bob R is a guidance counsellor in a Dallas area public school.

Would you want this man around your Down Syndrome kid?

The push behind abortion has never been about women's empowerment. It has always been about escaping the responsibility of parenting an unwanted child, that child often being "inferior".

He speaks of the pain that the family went through in treating this child.

As if love never involves loss, pain or difficulty.

March 25th: International Day of the Unborn Child

Today is the International Day of the Unborn Child.

Please say a prayer for the unborn.

Things have been bad in the past for the unborn. They will continue to be bad for a while.

But I'm hopeful.

I'm hopeful because I see more and more people stand up for the unborn child. There are marches for life springing up in Belgium, Germany and the Czech Republic. 40 Days for Life is saving kids. In Canada, questioning abortion does not seem as big a taboo as it was 15 years ago (although it's still very taboo in Quebec).

It's true that society is becoming more secularized. But the faithful that make up the Church are becoming more vocal. Even the Development and Peace scandal has a bit of a silver lining: it will force the Catholic bishops to pick a side: either they support fetal rights, or they don't.

Twenty years ago, people were sure that support for the unborn child would wane, just as support for racism waned.

Support for the unborn child has not waned. If anything, the spread of ultrasound has made the unborn child more visible, and the argument against abortion seem more sound than when the fetus was conceived as a "blob" of tissue.

I've noticed that more and more, abortion supporters have turned to talking about very early abortions-- 3 and 4 week abortions when the fetus' face is not formed, as opposed to 8- or 10- or 12- week abortions, when the visible results of abortion are more hideous.

They're obviously uncomfortable with abortion. They're uncomfortable with stating the fact that it kills a human being. Some will fight tooth and nail to get around stating such an obvious fact.

We've made them uncomfortable. That's progress. Sure, our opponents will continue to call us all kinds of names, putting the focus on us instead of abortion. But we will. And that's why, ultimately, we will be triumphant if we are persistent. I am absolutely certain of this, in spite of the steep hill we must climb. Our opponents want to have the debate about us, instead of the issue, and the facts and the logic of abortion speaks for itself.

The struggle for fetal rights is the human rights movement of the 21st century. We will win. Truth always wins in the end.

Ignatieff vows to press on in his crusade to promote legalized fetus killing in the Third World

In spite of his last two disastrous forays on the subject.

Bad luck comes in threes, right?

You'd think after his last sortie on the issue on February 2nd, he would have kept his mouth shut.

You'd think after this latest Parliamentary gaff, he would be anxious to move on to something else.

But no, he's ready to get back on that horse again, certain that Canadians are just mad as hell at Harper's Conservatives for refusing to fund abortion in the Third World.

Folks, here's the truth: Harper's MP's can support fetal rights all they want.So long as Harper does nothing about abortion, and his MP's only touch abortion around the edges, the vast majority of Canadians will not switch their votes based on this issue.

They're just not that scary.

It makes strictly no difference how MP's would vote on a motion. It's not even a blip on most people's radar.

Perhaps Ignatieff thinks he can win a few votes from Quebeckers on the matter, because they are far more supportive of abortion. This topic of abortion-as-women's-empowerment is one that elites care about. Not the general population. The proof is that Canadians have elected a government that has numerous pro-life MP's. Their pro-life stances are openly reported in the press. It's not like it's a big secret.

See, these progressive elites assume that average working people think like them, or should.

They're not getting it.

Ignatieff is going to do the abortion thing, and Harper will play him like a fiddle, and the Liberal Leader will fall on his butt yet again, and his popularity ratings with dive with the voting public.

I'm not going to stop him. He clearly lacks political smarts on this matter. Chretien-era strategies aren't going to help, given that Canada is different that what is was five years ago. I really believe that.

Ignatieff's abortion vote: #FAIL

It should have been an easy win for the Liberals.

Instead it backfired.

Now Ignatieff is threatening three pro-life MP's who voted their consciences: Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo and John McKay. God bless them. You can tell they are really pro-life by the way they vote pro-life even in the face of possible disciplinary measures.

John McKay is the Liberal Party's point guy on outreach to the Christian community, especially evangelicals.

What measure does it send to Evangelicals when one of their own has their knuckles rapped for voting against abortion?

It says that Liberals want their votes, but won't respect them in return. Perhaps they've given on them.

The Conservatives voted not to re-open the abortion debate. It's the Liberals who are desperate to bring up this wedge issue. Now, in one sense, this is not good for pro-lifers: we *do* want to re-open the abortion debate.

Or do we?

I get a little tired of my issue-- fetal rights-- being framed exclusively through the optics of the act of abortion. Yes, it's a horrible injustice to the abortion.

The problem is that it's a word with different meanings to different people. It means what it means because of the attitude towards the unborn child.

Perhaps instead of a debate on abortion, we should be having a debate on the unborn child.

I know that some people will say that in essence, it's the same thing.

Well, not quite.

For some, the debate on abortion is about women's autonomy.

We don't have to disagree with the principle of women's autonomy.

But the vast majority of those who support abortion in the name of women's autonomy do not agree with the notion that the fetus is an equal human being.

That's what's at stake here. The status of the unborn child.

That's the debate Canada needs to have.

I think the Liberal Party has taken the abortion issue as far as it will go. I don't think this issue is a winner for them. Even if the motion had passed: so what? They support abortion. Big deal. What does that mean?

Nothing!

We know the Conservatives don't want to pay for abortions. So?

It's just not an issue that they can derive a lot of political capital from.

But the Conservatives are playing the Liberals like a fiddle, even though they are supposedly the big bad scary misogynists. In the progressive-minded elites, it should be a no-brainer: Harper should be out on his butt because of this issue.

It's time these people learn to understand the rest of the country.

---

In other news: I'm ridiculously busy. I just blogged this on the run. I think it'll be this way for about the next three weeks or so. I just started working out at the gym and other stuff has come up in my life so please be patient!

Pro-life images galore

Need some graphics to spruce up your blog, facebook or website.

Check out Pro-Life Images.

MP Carolyn Bennet Shows Why Feminism Gets a Bad Rap

From No Apologies:

One of Michael Ignatieff’s senior MPs, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, says raising a child isn’t a “real job,” reports the Conservative Party today, in a statement reminiscent of “beer and popcorn.”

“According to Bennett, ‘Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care…to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work.’ (Hill Times, March 22, 2010),” note the Conservatives, asking: “Really? Raising a child at home isn’t a ‘real job’? Has Carolyn Bennett actually spoken to any real mothers lately?”

Carolyn Bennett may not have meant it the way it seems. After all, by "real job" she may have really meant "paying job", or "a better paying job" (as opposed to a crappy job).

But the way the statement is phrased, it makes it sound like a "real job" is more important than staying at home.

And she also makes her statement categorically. "Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care (...)".

Not me. And probably a lot of women in the same boat.

Even if you replaced "women" with "moms" (gee, conflating the two, isn't that anti-feminist?) I still don't think that's necessarily true. Even if it's true for 60% of mothers, what are the other 40%?

To tell you the truth, I don't really see my role as a "job". It's more of a vocation. I stay at home to be emotionally nurturing to my children, and that's not really "a job" to me. It involves a lot of effort, no doubt. But it's not in the same category as someone who slaves over a desk all day (or on the factory floor).

But there's always this suggestion by sophisticated leftists that staying at home isn't a legitimate thing to do, or that it's less valuable than what is done on the paid labour market.

It's hard to unionize moms, you know.

Where is justice for falsely accused priests?

Matt C. Abbott:

'If a diocese is named, it is a surefire way to have this priest put into even deeper water. It has become practice for many dioceses to publicize the priest's name, with a picture, with the occurrence of any accusation. It is also common practice that once a priest is removed, he is cut off from all means of support: salary, insurance and a place to live.

Falsely accused priests must come forward. I realize that it's difficult. But we need to get to the bottom of this. Are these "false memories" or malicious slanders?

Bishops could be mishandling this episode, too, to satisfy public pressure.

This is why the Church dealt with these issues in secret, but people don't get that.

Books That Have Influenced Me The Most

Paul Tuns is following up on a meme regarding books that have influenced him the most.

I thought I'd join in.

Unlike him, I have read a couple of books that are religious in nature that I consider to be life-changing. But most aren't.

Your Erroneous Zones by Wayne Dyer

This might surprise you. Wayne Dyer is a new-agey self-help guru whose tv specials are broadcast on PBS. I read this book when I was about 12. I cannot stress the impact it has had on my thought. It was absolutely foundational, and I consider it the reason why I was able to make it through high school in spite of all the bullying I was subjected to.

Now you must understand that I read this book with the eyes of a twelve-year-old. When I look back at how I interpreted it, it seems so simplistic, and I can see how I might have lost some of the nuances. But the fundamental idea I drew from it is this:

Feelings come from thoughts.

You can control your thoughts.

Therefore, you can control your feelings.

Now, in hindsight, I think that there are a lot of nuances that can be brought to that syllogism, but I believed it in a very fundamentalist way. And because I believed that, I believed in its corollary: behaviour comes from thoughts. You can control your thoughts, therefore, you can control your behaviour.

I think you can see where I derive my right-wing thinking.

It was a book that helped me to reason. Because I had this framework for analyzing my emotional world-- something a lot of teenagers lack. So if I felt bad, I would examine the thoughts that were leading me to feel bad, and I would try to change those thoughts.

There were other ideas in the book that were also very influential. Such as the idea that I, an individual, don't need people to make me happy. I don't believe that today, at least not in the way that I believed it when I was 13. But the positive end result of that belief is that I was happy to be by myself and do my own thing.

The one big thing that was foundational, too, was that the book spoke of Jesus as being a very self-actualized person. I wasn't very religious at the time, but it led me to look at Jesus as a model to follow.

I could go on all night about how that book influenced me. And although I don't really subscribe to the beliefs as I remember them, it helped me think about myself and sharpened my reasoning skills and eventually led me to other thought processes.

Walden Pond by Henry David Thoreau

I read this book in university, and I thought it had a distinctive Catholic flavour to it. The main thing I drew from it: you don't own stuff: stuff owns you. That was something of an epiphany for me, and it made me happy because it showed me that literature still had something to teach me :)

The Autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila

Another foundational book in my life. I read it in the mid 90's. It really taught me about Catholic spirituality.


Treatise of the True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary by St. Louis de Montfort

This book really opened my eyes to the necessity of Mary in Catholicism. Many people marginalize her without really understanding her essential role in the economy of salvation. I suck at the Mary thing, but I acknowledge her as vital to any contemporary understanding of spirituality, grace and eschatology.

Hardball by Chris Matthews

Everything I needed to know about operating in politics, I learned from this book. I understand how to play politics based on reality, not wishful thinking.

Lawrence Martin's Biography of Jean Chretien

Idem. Jean Chretien knows how to play politics. The most important lesson I drew from it is that when two political groups are in conflict with one another, it's the group that wants it the most that will win.

Self Matters by Dr. Phil McGraw

This is another book that has really made me see life in a new way. I liked Dr. Phil's thinking because there are many Catholic elements in it. One thing that I like is that his perception of the world is ordered. To him, the universe is an entity that operates with certain rules. Learn those rules and you'll have a richer life. Be ignorant of them, and your life will be in the ditch. An ordered universe is very Thomistic. While not being metaphysical (in fact I would say he would probably reject metaphysics) he gets to the underlying essence of how human beings operate. What is missing from his thought is metaphysics. It's really too bad, he'd make a great Catholic. :) He understands that things work a certain way. He just doesn't try to understand why they work a certain way.

Some Vietnamese Doctors Feel Anguish Over Abortion

As you may know, Vietnam, like Canada, is one of the few countries in the world that does not restrict abortion. It's a communist, officially atheist country.

So the population should have no qualms about abortion, right? There should be absolutely no hang-ups about it, because it's a medical operation like any other.

Wrong.

Some time ago, I wrote about feminists want to de-stigmatize abortion. They just can't understand why it's not treated like any other health issue.

They fail to see what this has to do with it:

VietNamNet Bridge - Abortions are the stuff of daily life for Dr. Nguyen Thi Hong Minh, director of the Central Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital in Hanoi.

But there are times she has to confront her “worst fears”, having to abort fetuses that are 20-22 weeks old, when their bodies are fully formed.

“I always feel a sharp pain along my back when I have to treat those unlucky babies.”

The nutrition between the mother and baby is cut and the fetus dies in the womb in most cases, she said.

“But some fetuses are delivered so quickly and they manage to take another breath before they’re gone. There’s no way to save them as they weigh only 400 grams or so.

“As a woman, I am really hurt. Other children are born with so much care and love. But these 20 to 22 week old babies, already little dolls and they have to die.”

Babies? Die? Why-- that's anti-choice language!

Or maybe it's just plainspeak-- the way people talk when they don't feel they have to mangle their words to live up to an ideal of political correctness.

Minh said many doctors in her situation chose to visit pagodas frequently, trying to find some peace.

Couldn't be! Anti-choice propaganda. Doctors don't feel upset at killing "babies"!

But if feminists do admit that there's something wrong with abortion...they'd be undermining their own cause.

It's a Catch-22 situation for them, isn't it?

Dutch Pedophile Political Party Dissolved

For lack of support

Among other things, the organization's platform aimed to fix the age of consent at 12, legalize child pornography, eliminate marriage in the law, permit public nudity anywhere in the country, and legalize bestiality.

Its leaders "have decided to dissolve the party after failing for the second time" to collect the signatures necessary to take part in the forthcoming elections, explained the Sicilian priest.

"To be able to elect a deputy, the movement, created in 2006, should have obtained some 60,000 votes," he stated.

The party's founders stated that the debate and controversy sparked by the platform impeded any serious discussion on its objectives; hence, its members opted for dissolution.

In a press release, however, they stated that certain members will be invited to speak as "freedom fighters" in an Amsterdam festival in May.

The party's communiqué added that although the organization is dissolved, the issues have not disappeared, and "a cultural shift is a matter of time."

Father Di Noto affirmed that there are still thousands of Web sites supporting pedophilia.

"There are still thousands of sites that promote the acceptance and normalization of sexual abuses; a real strategy to make normal what instead is a horror," he said.

Freedom must be based on sound values. That's why it's necessary to believe in moral absolutes and the natural law.

I think that with the spread of pedophilia, it may come to pass that it will be normalized, because people are unwilling to draw the line and be perceived as rigid and old-fashioned.

The Difference Between "Pulling the Plug" and Euthanasia

A summary by Margaret Somerville. There are many good points, but this is the bottom line:

This brings us to the issue of legal causation, which also differentiates refusals-of-treatment-that-result-in-death from euthanasia. In the former, the person dies from their underlying disease — a natural death. The withdrawal of treatment is the occasion on which death occurs, but not its cause. If the person had no fatal illness, they would not die. We can see that when patients who refuse treatment and are expected to die, do not die. In contrast, in euthanasia death is certain and the cause of death is the lethal injection. Without that, the person would not die at that time from that cause.

The fact that the patient dies both in refusing treatment and in euthanasia is one of the sources of the confusion between the two. If we focus just on the fact that in both cases the outcome is death, we miss the real point of distinction between death resulting from refusing treatment and from euthanasia

Canada: Do you want to pay for abortions in the Third World?

Globe and Mail:

Liberals are hoping to pin down Prime Minister Stephen Harper over where he stands on abortion in his G8 maternal-health initiative for the Third World.

The Opposition is to introduce a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday demanding that the plan cover a “full range” of family-planning options, which would include contraception and abortion.

The text of the motion:

March 19, 2010 — Mr. Rae (Toronto Centre) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy;

that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and

that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.

The "full range" of options includes abortion.

I feel like the Liberals are completely disconnected from the average voter. Do you think they're crying out for the parties to have this debate? I wish we could go to election on this. What a ballot box question: Do you want to pay for abortions in the Third World? Canadians don't want to pay for abortions in this country. I can't imagine they would want to fund it in Third World countries, especially in places where such interventionism would be unwelcome.

I hope someone does a poll on this.

An Operative from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops Visits My Blog

The individual working at the CCCB used Socialmention.com as his source, and surfed onto this blogpost.

I just hope that whoever is reading (and I hope they come back!) understands that in the Catholic faith, fetal rights is not optional. All Catholics are bound to defend the right to life of unborn children, both socially and on the political level.

I know that some of the bishops will attempt to use their authority to silence this message. But lay Catholics can make use of their office as prophets to remind all the faithful of the Truth of Divine Revelation.

So folks, if you blog about this, the Catholic Bishops (or someone working for them) will get around to visiting your blog, too. Keep at it!

Macleans: Social Conservatism on the March

Paul Wells:

Of course, some of the biggest fights of old—over abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty—remain far outside the bounds of ordinary political debate in Canada.

Except abortion keeps popping up in political debate. But just ignore that!

Social conservatives have had to content themselves with incremental victory. But it had been many years since they could expect even that. Conservatives who vote on faith, family and criminal justice felt so left out by Brian Mulroney’s governments that millions of them fled to Reform and smaller groups like the Christian Heritage party. Now they are back, rubbing elbows with power, not always running the show but never ignored. They have not had so much good news from Ottawa in half a century.

...

I think the title of the article is misleading. Calling Harper "hard right" is an exaggeration. Supporting a few social conservative policies does not make one "hard right". There are Liberals who are for more socially conservative than Harper, and they would hardly be characterized as "hard right".

Happy Birthday Henry Morgentaler

On this date 87 years ago, Henry Morgentaler emerged from his mother's womb.

You might think that I wish that he would have been aborted, but I don't. I'm glad his mom gave him life. I just wish he would have allowed the same for all the unborn.

Remember to say a prayer for Henry. He doesn't have a lot of time left to repent.

And another thing: isn't it peculiar that that the pro-life movement in Canada is said to be violent, and yet Morgentaler has lived this long?

I predict he'll die a natural death.

The Magic of Third World Abortions

Chucker Canuck:

Damn that Belinda Stronach and her sidekick, Rick Mercer. When they launched an initiative to help save lives in Africa, they didn't fund a single abortion. Instead, they were trying to supply mosquito nets to protect from insect-born disease! As eminent Liberal MP and MD would say: that's unethical.

Now, Canadians are faced with the repulsive prospect that its government might fund nutrition, medical training, sanitation and drug supplies in lieu of abortions! Like you, I reel in horror at the prospect of well-fed children that could have been aborted with my tax dollars instead.

Links of Interest to Pro-Lifers

The Ottawa March for Life has its own fan page on Facebook. Please join and invite your friends!

Lifesite also has a fan page.

Olivia's Justice is a fan page launched by MaryLou Talbot, whose daughter Olivia was killed when she was pregnant with her unborn son Lane. MaryLou is pressing on for an unborn victims of crime bill.

Alliance for Life Ontario has launched Personhood.ca to push for the legal recognition of the unborn child in Canada.

The March for Jesus will be held in Calgary on June 20th. I wondered what had happened to those marches...

Development and Peace’s PR Failure

I’m still upset by yesterday’s revelations that Development and Peace is denying the allegations of impropriety, all the while smearing Campaign Life and LifeSiteNews.

If there’s a silver lining in all this, it’s that D&P’s response to the allegations is a public relations failure, and it will only come back to bite them in the butt.

In effect, D&P’s response to Lifesite’s allegations is there is no problem.

Do they refute the evidence?

No.

Do they even accurately portray the charges?

No.

How are people who are informed about the issue supposed to take D&P seriously?

When you read the document, you get the feeling that D&P’s perception of the situation is that the faithful in the pew are getting wind of some negative allegations, but are not too plugged in to the whole story. D&P treats its audience like they are basically ignorant of the whole controversy, and it banks on this ignorance to make vague counter-refutations that it expects its readers to take at their word. If they perceived that their readers were knowledgeable, they would try harder to get their story straight.

I think this perception is partially rooted in the fact that D&P operates out of Montreal. In Quebec, the pro-life movement is perceived and treated as something very fringe, even among the Church. I get the distinct impression that they have no idea how important the pro-life movement is in many parts of the Canadian Church. It’s like they operate in their own little world with little reference to the church outside their leftist bubble.

The icing on the cake is D&P’s admission that yes, it does fund groups that support the ending of legal protection for unborn human beings. In effect, it gave credence to Lifesite’s charges.

Seeing as it can’t change what it won’t acknowledge, D&P will continue to keep funding the same types of groups. Information will surface about money going to groups that oppose fetal rights, and it will again issue half-baked denials, get a lot of facts wrong, and look stupid in the process. The cycle will repeat until it realizes it's not working.

Meanwhile, if the bishops do not act—and I have a hunch that they won’t—the Vatican will certainly get word of this. I think that the Vatican needs to issue a new policy to the effect that church-operated charities cannot give money to groups that actively oppose fetal rights. I suspect that if we keep at this long enough, it eventually will, especially if the bishops in the South are grumbling about this money.


In other news, John Pacheco wrote the blogpost I'd wanted to write last night, in which he thoroughly fisks the D & P talking points.

Development and Peace Reveals Its True Colours

I'm very angry at this report by LifesiteNews about Development and Peace.

There's so much I want to write, but I can't because I'd be up all night. Maybe I'll write several posts on it. Don't be surprised if I do.

There are two things that really pissed me off.

First is the implication by D & P that Campaign Life Coalition is part of a movement that is violent, or that it supports violence.

I know the people at the Ottawa Campaign Life office. The notion that they are violent is ridiculous in the extreme. I know Jim Hughes, the president, from Toronto. He's also a very peaceful man. I am outraged that these good people have been unfairly smeared.

The second thing that made me mad is that Development and Peace admits to partnering with groups that favour the de-criminalization of abortion, and then acts like we made everything up. Like the decriminalization of abortion is an acceptable Gospel value. D&P says it picks groups that shares its values, but apparently, taking away legal protection from the most vulnerable members of society is an acceptable value for them.

Of course it is. Development and Peace operates out of Montreal, and the Archbishop of Montreal, Cardinal Turcotte, said plainly on Quebec Television that he opposes the criminalization of abortion.

No shock there. If the head of the Church in Montreal thinks that not providing legal protection for the unborn is a consonant with Gospel values, why should Development and Peace think any differently?

The bottom line, D&P, if you're reading this is this: YOU OPPOSE FETAL RIGHTS. And the groups you partner with opppose fetal rights.

Fetal rights is not an oppositional stance for a Catholic. If you are to partner with people who share your values, you should partner with people who support fetal rights, or at the very least, do not oppose them.

This is not a smear. This is the truth.

If Development and Peace truly supports the poorest of the poor, then they should support the legal protection of unborn children. Who is poorer than a child whose mom will not respect his right to life?

Stephen Harper on Youtube: A worthy exercise in need of tweaking

I finally got around to listening to Stephen Harper's famous Youtube interview.

I like the premise, but I thought the interview itself was a little long, and at points a little dull.

It's not that Stephen Harper was dull. But some questions interested me more than others.

Forty minutes is a long time to sit and watch anything on your computer.

I would like to suggest to the powers that be that they should consider making one Youtube Video per question, as well as offer the interview in toto. This way, you can skip to the questions that you find more interesting.

I didn't like the format of having English and French in the same interview. It seemed a little awkward.

I liked seeing Harper talk from the heart, uninterrupted and off the top of his head. I don't think this kind of interview is a substitute for a journalist-driven interview, because Harper did not have to face tougher follow up questions. But I got an unfiltered answer to the question, and that 's what I like about it: no mainstream media trying to put any spin on it. You can make up your own mind about what to think of his answers.

I genuinely hope this is not the last we see of this. In my last post on this subject, I had some other suggestions. I hope that if there are any communications people who're reading them, they take them into consideration.

---

UPDATE: I swear, I did not read David Evans' article in the Globe and Mail before publishing this blogpost. He makes many of the same comments I did (sometimes using some of the same words!) Perhaps my post was too predictable?

Why oh why does abortion get such a bad rap?

Some promoters of legal abortions throw up their hands and wonder why oh why does abortion get such a bad rap.

They turn their heads from the actual act of abortion and are metaphysically certain it has to do with women having guiltless sex. It COULDN'T POSSIBLY have to do with the nature of abortion itself.

Case in point.

A former associate of George Tiller, Shelley Sella who is now operating out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was accused by one of her own staff of stabbing a 35-week live-born baby and killing him.

Now, if the baby had still been attached to the umbilical cord, that would have been legal in Canada (because he would not have taken his first breath.)

Do feminists care? Noooo.

Now, that baby was supposed to have died from an injection of digoxin to the heart.

At 35 weeks.

That's not only done in the States, it's done in Canada.

Do feminists care that babies die that way? Nooooo.

Now, what does the killing of a 35-week baby have to do with the typical abortion?

First off: it's allowed to happen. An abortion at 35 weeks or an abortion at 6 weeks are both types of killing.

Secondly: secondly, people can say "it's a potential human being" all they want, it's not objectively true, and you can't have a sane conversation without treating the unborn as human beings.

Just as an example, the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation is broadcasting commercials about their work, featuring an ultrasound of an unborn child. The tag line is "we're saving lives before they're born." How can you save a life that doesn't exist? How can you operate on a fetus' heart-- the heart being an organ present in all higher lifeforms-- and not consider the fetus a human being.

That's just one example among the many one could pull from the top of one's head that shows that we in fact consider the fetus a human being. We know that each and everyone one of us was a fetus at one point in our development. People don't become, on their own, things that are ontologically different than themselves. So iguanas don't grow up to be chimpanzees, and chicks don't grow up to be beetles. So if you're a human being at adulthood, and you were a fetus in the womb, that means that as a fetus, you were also a human being.

That's logic 101. But people look at the fetus as something essentially different than themselves.

So there's no such thing as a "potential human being".

The aspect of killing human beings just completely escapes their purview. Supporters of legal abortion treat it like it's all about the woman and her aspirations, her moral values and her body.

It's not. Poor-choicers are completely blind to what abortion is, even on a symbolic level.

So when abortionists kill full-born babies at 35 weeks, it's supposed to be shocking. How can this be? How can anyone do that?

How indeed? If you can kill a 35-week-old human being in the womb, what's a step further and kill him outside the womb? It's THE SAME THING AND FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

And you know, even if some feminists might privately harbour misgivings about abortion's nature, there will be no widespread acknowledgement of it. Sure, you'll get the odd voice, too honest, blunt and thoughtful to suffocate the truth. But mainstream feminists will run from that issue like cockroaches from the light. They instinctively know: once you start talking about the fetus, and what happens to the fetus during abortion, it's game over.

That's why they always bring it back to the woman. They think that there is some way to destigmatize abortion, if we just demystify it enough, talk about it enough, talk about how it liberates women, then EVENTUALLY people will come to see it as necessary to equality-- as if people completely overlook the means to achieve this so-called "equality". To feminists, it doesn't matter that babies like that 35-week-old have to die in the name of equality. Dead fetuses are collateral damage in the war against patriarchy.

And they remain mystified as to why abortion gets a bad rap. Even in a society that overwhelmingly supports its legality.

Pope Benedict and the Pedophilia Scandal... Interesting Timing

The Black Biretta:

Is it not ironic that it took 30 years for someone to charge then Archbishop Ratzinger with 'negligence' at worst? Nothing said in 1980 when the alleged incident occurred. Nothing said when he became Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And silence when he became Successor of Saint Peter and Pope Benedict five years ago. No, slanderous accusations come in 2010. Why? How about feeding frenzy in the press? How about anti-Catholic schemes to discredit the Pontiff? How about clandestine plots from enemies of the Church or opponents to B16's different style of papacy? In any event, the dirt won't stick. But have we not seen similar character assassination tries leveled against P12 and even JP2?

"If they hated me, they will hate you ... if they persecuted me, they will persecute you"

Blogging may be light

I'm just really busy, and now it's March Break, so I have to keep an eye on my school-aged children.

Please read the sidebar. Lots of interesting blogs there.

New Poll Suggests We're Half Way to a Pro-Life Canada

I thought the latest poll sponsored by the Manning Centre could have been an outlier.

Still, even if it's even remotely true that three quarters of Canadians consider abortion to be morally wrong, it suggests that pro-lifers are not that marginal a group as it has been suggested in the past.

And that Canadians are not closed to pro-life arguments.

If three quarters really are opposed to abortion, then from the point of view of political persuasion, we should be advancing the idea of legally recognized personhood for the unborn.

We only have to convince a little over than 2/3 of them to get a true pro-life majority. If Canadians already consider abortion to be wrong, we should probe why they think so. Stop fighting feminists (who would be the extreme) and start answering what average people think.

I laughed out loud at this email re: Stephen Harper's Youtube Interview

As you may know, the Prime Minister is expected to be interviewed on Youtube with questions that were submitted and voted on by the public.

Of course, the question process has been hijacked by a bunch of pothead activists.

And when I say "hijacked" I don't mean that they submitted a question that on an issue that many people don't care about. I mean that they've submitted dozens, if not hundreds, of questions on that issue, ruining through spamination an exercise that could have been a good step towards democracy. I don't object to the fact that 1500 people have voted in favour of asking a question regarding marijuana. I object to the top 3 questions all having to do with marijuana.

However, given all the pothead questions, and other questions about what might be termed fringe political concerns, I thought this email from the Conservative Party of Canada was hilarious:

From:
"Conservative Party of Canada / Parti conservateur du Canada
To:[editted]


There is still time to submit questions to the Prime Minister and to vote on which ones he gets asked.

Our Prime Minister was the first in history to engage with Canadians by speaking to them live through YouTube, and now he'll be the first to sit down and actually answer questions from everyday Canadians.

Please go to YouTube.com/TalkCanada to submit a question and to vote. You can also do video submissions.

Then, next Tuesday on < a target="_blank" href="http://software.clickbackmail.com/clicker.asp?kkkjkqkqkpkojtnonwokokkqkplhoqninpnwnwjvnknwnujtkikokpkkkljtkhjtkjkjkpkkkijtkijtknkjknknkikqkqjtki">YouTube (YouTube.com/TalkCanada), at 7pm EST, the Prime Minister will sit down and answer the most popular questions submitted by all CANADIANS.

Get involved and be a part of Canadian history!

Special Note: The live broadcast is open to all Canadians. No special access is required. Any Canadian can submit a question and vote on others.

Gee, you're not liking the questions, are you?

I really hope that the Conservative powers-that-be don't put the kabosh on this exercise because of the spaminators. I think this is worthwhile, it just needs some fine-tuning. This fishing for votes, though, should be verboten. It smells of conflict of interest. Looking for softballs, are you Stephen? Conservative activists should have been more active in initiating the fight back. Seriously, the fact that the party had to do this looks pathetic.

And if you do submit a question, please don't submit a question that sounds like something that came out of question period. E.G. "Your government is the most incomptent in history and has never cared about the true interests of Canadians, what are you prepared to do to fight poverty in this country."

That's just a repeat of QP.

Please ask for specific details and not engage in ideological and partisan posturing.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's YouTube Interview-- Good Idea Poorly Executed

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is supposed to be interviewed on Youtube on March 16th at 7 pm. The questions will have been submitted by the public and voted on on the Youtube page.

I like the idea of the Prime Minister taking questions from the public instead of engaging in the ridiculous shenanigans of Question Period.

But the process for this has been poorly thought out.

At the time of posting, there have already been over 1188 questions submitted.

Is the public expected to read through over a thousand questions and vote on them? Naturally, some questions will get more exposure than others.

Then there are questions that essentially repeats. The pro-marijuana activists have submitted a large number of them.

And then there are those Youtube users who've submitted dozens upon dozens of questions, many of them trollish in nature (and some totally partisan).

Some of the questions are just plainly stupid.

I think that this exercise is not without merit, but I think there should be some controls.

For starters, the page where questions are posted should be organized like a message board, so that questions can be organized into categories, e.g. economics, social issues, democracy.

The submission process should be separate from the voting process, so all questions get the same number of days so they all have an equal chance of being viewed and voted on.

Questions should be moderated to avoid repeats. Completely moronic questions should be filtered.

Each user should be allowed 5 questions.

Notwithstanding its faults, I think the spirit of the exercise is great, and I hope we have more such sessions in the future.

---

UPDATE: The questions are now sorted by popularity, what's hot (?) and by date. I don't think that makes things better.

I Declare March 10th Thank an EX-Abortionist Day (video)

As you may have heard, March 10th is Thank an Abortionist Day. Its purpose is to legitimize the profession of abortionist, and raise the morale of those employed in that capacity.

I think we should counter this effort to legitimize abortion by observing March 10th as Thank an Ex-Abortionist Day.

I'm thinking especially of Ex-Abortionists who have turned from the error of their ways and used their knowledge and experience for the benefit of the pro-life cause.

I would like to thank Bernard Nathanson for his efforts in producing The Silent Scream and revealing to the world the deceptive tactics of the pro-abortion movement.

We're here for you, Next Thursday. Please let us know how we can help. #livetweetingabortion

Jill Stanek:

I've asked about Next Thursday on the Twitter thread #livetweetingabortion several times, only to be rebuffed. Pro-abort Golmer finally wrote, "Why don't you worry about babies in Haiti? Car Wrecks? Africa? No. You Fixate on Nextthurs."

Yes, guilty. Pro-lifers indeed "fixate" not only on the babies but their moms. I really do care about the whereabouts of Next Thursday. Is she alive? Is she dead? Is she in the hospital? Is she maimed? Is she so traumatized she can't talk about it? Did she stop breast-feeding? Is her 9-month-old OK?

While pro-aborts don't want to hear about it when a "safe and legal" abortion goes bad, or about the multitude of after-affects, pro-lifers stay to help pick up the pieces.

We're here for you, Next Thursday. Please let us know how we can help.

If anyone who follows Next Thursday has her phone number or email address, could you please contact her and find out what's happening and let us know if she's okay and that if she has had adverse side effects that she's seeking appropriate medical attention?

Her abortion may have gone bad and now she doesn't want to face the world because it would be bad PR for her cause.

Next Thursday, if you're reading, just let us know you're alive and safe, okay?

Remember how the abortion activists tried to downplay Harlan Drake's motives?

But they always jump to conclusions when abortion staff are hurt or killed?

Lifesite:

The day before Drake went on his killing rampage, his mother reportedly expressed annoyance with Pouillon’s pro-life activities. Pouillon was a fixture in the town of Owosso. He frequently protested by holding a sign with the pictures of a living baby on one side and an aborted baby on the other. On September 11, 2009, the day he was killed, he was holding this sign outside the Owosso High School.

In response to his mother’s statements on Sept. 10 disapproving of Pouillon’s sign-holding, Drake testified: “Kind of under my breath I said 'I'll take care of that tomorrow.'"

(...)

"The only thought I had was that they didn't have to see that sign again. I was hoping that he wouldn't be there that morning."

Drake clearly described to the court how he killed the pro-life activist: "I grabbed the 45, put it out the window and shot him 3 times."

The worst part about all this?

Harlan Drake's motive in shooting Poullion was to silence him. He thought he was defending adolescent girls from fear and horror. By shooting a bullet in the chest.

It's like trying to save the mother's "life" (i.e. quality of life) by killing a baby. It only seems rational if you focus only on the results, not on the means.

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy may come to accept it

Supporters of legal abortion often speak of the cruelty of making a woman own up to her responsibility towards her unborn child and call it forced pregnancy.

As if it in no way involved responsibility towards another human being. Since when is enforcing responsibility a form of oppression? (When it doesn't benefit feminists, that's when! But I digress...)


Real Choice underscores how many women come to accept an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. Christina Dunigan quotes Dr. Alec Bourne, the British doctor who was acquitted for aborting a 14-year-old rape victim in 1935. (That case was monumental in the history of abortion in Canada, because it provided the legal defense for abortion, even if it was not decriminalized. Abortions were not uncommon in the 1960's in Canada.)

"Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal."

Homosexuals on Vatican Staff Removed after Prostitution Ring Revelations

ROME, March 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Two Vatican staffers have been removed after revelations that they were involved in a homosexual prostitution ring.

American priest and frequent media commentator, Father Thomas Williams told CBS News, “We're just scratching the surface here. There's definitely more to come.”

You know why this is allowed to happen? Because no one wants to impose sanctions on anyone. It's mean.

We're not doing the Church any favours by being soft on this kind of thing.

UK: New Rights Legislation Would Make Mocking Vegans a Hate Crime

The insanity of Human Rights Commissions continues:

The code, drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, singles out vegans, who do not eat any animal products or wear leather, as meriting protection from religious discrimination. It says: “A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind. That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare.”

A spokesman from the commission explained: “This is about someone for whom being vegan or vegetarian is central to who they are. This is not something ‘thought up by the commission’. Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.”

The legislation also covers “any religious belief or philosophical belief” and even “a lack of belief”.

Philosophical beliefs to be protected could include humanism and pacifism, but a spokesman for Harman said scientific or political beliefs such as Marxism and fascism would not be covered. The commission added that the recently founded International Church of Jediism, with 500,000 followers worldwide who base their philosophy on the Star Wars films, would not qualify. Beliefs had to be heartfelt.

The Church of Jediism should lay a complaint. It'd be too funny.

Pro-Life Flash Mob in Vladivostok, Russia

Here's a different pro-life protest.

An anti-abortion flash mob in the Russian Far Eastern city of Vladivostok, entitled Silent Scream, gathered some 30 participants on Sunday who symbolically released black and red toy balloons with unborn children's names into the sky, a RIA Novosti correspondent reported.

(...)

But the flash mob participants released toy balloons to the sound of a bell ringing each six seconds, which they said was due to unofficial statistics, in line with which an unborn child dies in Russia during an abortion each six seconds, which is four-five times the official figures.

The flash mob ended when all available toy balloons were released into the sky.

"Today we are holding a youth action entitled Silent Scream against abortions and we consider an abortion to be a murder. We... want to address women and say: 'Don't darken your soul with the murder of your own child'. An abortion is inadmissible, especially in this country that is experiencing a demographic crisis," an organizer said.

Silent Scream is the name of a documentary dating back to 1983 showing the abortion of a 12-week fetus. Abortion opponents use the film as proof illustrating their viewpoint.

I'm sorry the article did not get the names of the people who organized this event. As far as pro-life protests go, this one is rather unique, and the people behind it should be given recognition. (Perhaps that's why they weren't named!)

Russians are really upfront about abortion. Even the abortionists will admit it's murder, and some will try to convince the woman not to have the abortion if they don't think her reasons are good enough.

King of Spain Excommunicated Himself by Signing Abortion Law...So They Say

But what's the point of a canon that no one bothers to enforce?

Will the King of Spain receive communion next time he goes to Mass?

I bet you he will.

Nobody wants to enforce that canon.

What makes me mad is that the hierarchy does not realize that when they, who are in charge, do not abide by the letter of the law, people will come to hold the law in contempt.

The clergy think they are doing the Church a big favour.

They're not. The King of Spain may have signed his condemnation to hell, but the bishops react as if to say "oh well, no biggy."

And then everyone else will wonder why they aren't given special treatment.

God is no respecter of persons. Our titles, our elected offices, those are just baubles to him. Remember that.

UN blames "inactive women" for gender imblance in the workforce

The International Labor Organization:

The report shows that there are three basic areas of lingering gender imbalances in the world of work. First, nearly half (48.4 per cent) of the female population above the age of 15 remain economically inactive, compared to 22.3 per cent for men.

Inactive women? You mean like...stay-at-home moms?

Our "inactivity" represents an imbalance, i.e. a problem?

“We still find many more women than men taking up low-pay and precarious work, either because this is the only type of job made available to them or because they need to find something that allows them to balance work and family responsibilities.

And what if women choose to do these low-wage, part-time jobs (as I have done in the past.)

Someone has to do these crappy jobs. I chose to. Does that mean I'm not equal?

The Demographic Problem Does Not Require Government Intervention

This is why it's critical to talk about babies now. It's too late for a rise in fertility rates to do anything to offset the pressures of population aging that will afflict us over the next decade or two. But if nothing changes now, those pressures will only get worse.

So why don't politicians talk about it? They will, actually. But only in private -- a strange phenomenon I'll discuss another day.

Why must we wait until the government deals with the situation.

We don't need to.

We simply need to sound the alarm to the youth:

You need to have more kids.

I know that the feminists will freak out at this suggestion, accusing social conservatives of treating women like baby machines (so what else is new?).

The bright side is that we can be confident that feminists will not have enough children to self-perpetuate, at least on a biological level.

The question is: will social conservatives (and others) take up the cause?

Shouldn't we impress upon the youth-- aged 15-30-- the importance of having at least three children?

The Stigma of Abortion

JivinJ:

One of the main problems with efforts to de-stigmatize abortion is that proponents of de-stigmatization don't really understand (or can't accept) the reason why abortion is so stigmatized.

Abortion isn't stigmatized because people think only "bad women" get abortions or that most women aren't open about their abortion experiences.

Abortion is stigmatized because it's a procedure which intentionally kills an innocent human being. No number of women sharing their abortion experiences is going to change that reality. People who really recognize the reality of abortion aren't suddenly going to change their opinion on abortion simply because more women talk about abortion. Abortion is an atrocity regardless of how many women get them and are willing to talk about them.

So long as feminists keep lying to themselves and thinking that opposition to abortion is about punishing sluts for enjoying guiltless sex outside of marraige, they'll never get it. Oh sure, saying that will edify the already converted, but it won't speak to the masses. It doesn't speak to the masses, because it does not take into account the real motives of the masses. Feminists refuse to take the public at face value on their reasons for opposing abortion, because it would force them to consider the fetus, and they can't do that because that means their movement is dead in the water.

The Love and Non-Violence of the Left

In the wake, of Bill Whatcott's legal victory against the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, infamous commenter Ti-Guy wrote:

I'd like to see him try.

Bill Whatcott is armed.

Korean hospital promotes abortion alternatives

A Catholic hospital in South Korea is urging expectant mothers not to abort babies with congenital diseases because many cases can be cured after birth.

“When they learn that defects can be cured … many parents change their minds and do not abort,” said Agnes Che Je-hee.

(...)

Che says her center has succeeded in persuading around 60-70 couples not to abort their babies since it opened on March 23, 2009.

CathNewsAsia

Perhaps the pro-life movement in North America should investigate more closely what doctors tell the mothers of fetuses who have been diagnosed with a genetic defect. My impression is that a lot of doctors are quite content to do these abortions.

Perhaps consent laws should make it obligatory for doctors practicing in this field to be as thorough as possible about choices, including possible palliative care for babies with life-threatening conditions.

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk On the Murder of His Mother

Wow. I never knew. Shocking story:

Hnatiuk says he speaks from experience because he is a survivor and eye witness to the murder of his mother with a high powered rifle at the hands of his father. Jim recalled the November evening in 1956, how his father came home after supper to kill the entire family of ten: the inerasable, horrific memories of the screams, the hiding, the shots at his older brother and finally the suicide of his father.

Hnatiuk says, “The introduction of CHP Canada’s firearms policy will help prevent subsequent mass murders in Canada, such as the Polytechnique Massacre. Had just one of those students or instructors been properly trained and carrying a handgun who can say how many of those fourteen female students could have been saved.”

Want to stop teens from having sex? Supervise them!

If kids are always around people in authority, they're far less likely to have sex. Strange but true!

Sometimes when teen pregnancy and/or abortion rates come under discussion, one will hear the observation that teen pregnancy and/or abortion is not really the issue: teen sex is the problem. And one hears and reads all kinds of reasons for this — peer pressure, media pressure, low expectations, low self-esteem, lack of parental communication of higher standards, raging hormones — the list is endless. But even teen sex is not really the issue, because teen sex is a function of lack of supervision.

Supervision means watching over, as in eyes on, not as in overlooking. It means having the object of supervision in your line of sight. It means keeping said object of supervision in sight. I hate to belabor the obvious — another word that has to do with sight (“to SEE the way”), but it is time someone said to parents that the reason your youngsters are having sex is because you are failing to supervise — to watch — them.

Now I will grant that there are few kids who sneak out of the windows at night or skip out of the school building to which a dutiful parent has entrusted them — but I will bet that most of the sexually active kids really did not have to go all that much trouble to create the occasion for fornication.

So if you do not want your kid to be counted in the latest — or the next — batch of shocking statistics, the answer is really simple. Supervise your kid. Eyes on. If your eyes can’t be on, then you make certain that the eyes of another adult are.

Oh, to be sure, educate and give them solid spiritual training and tell them your expectations — I mean research does show that all these statistically result in a higher age of onset of sexual activity — but nothing, I guarantee nothing, will discourage teen sexual activity like the eyes of an adult on the kids.

I know what people will think: this is too much work.

Is it too much work to keep one's children safe?


H/T: The Politics of the Cross

Was Angie Jackson's Live Tweeting Abortion a PR Failure?

I was puttering around the internet when I came across this article about Angie Jackson's attempt to live tweet abortion.

Jackson says she was terrified at first about taking the abortion pill because she didn't know what to expect. "I just wanted other women to know they didn't have to be as terrified as I was. I was so scared."

She says she shared her story hoping it would help someone else. "Because I know that there are other women out there who have had abortions that they aren't torn up about. That don't make them feel ashamed. Maybe they knew it was the right choice, but our culture silences them and says that they're not allowed to talk about their abortion unless they're sad."

So what kind of reaction does her live tweeting get?

"I had expected to be called a slut and a murderer. Those are words we're used to being called when it comes to reproductive rights. I hadn't expected to have someone say they wished my son would be ripped from limb to limb in front of me. I hadn't expected some of the very vulgar sexually violent things people have wished on me. It's been rather shocking for people who claim that their motivation is the interest of an unborn child to then turn around and threaten the life of my four year old."

Now if you're a young woman looking for reassurance on abortion, is this reassuring?

I don't think it's right to threaten people and anyone who makes death threats is not pro-life as far as I'm concerned.

Yet the whole purpose of the exercise was to make women more at ease with their abortion decision. Would this do it? Somehow I'm skeptical.

I think she thought that by demystifying abortion, she would make it more acceptable. I think it just angered people more because not only is she doing something considered to be gravely wrong, but she is being very exhibitionist about it.

The other miscalculation she made, I think, is that she thought that pro-lifers want to keep abortion hidden and women in silence.

As a pro-life blogger, I will say: there is nothing I love more than demystifying abortion. There is nothing that interests me more than having women talk about their abortions in all honesty. A hundred women can talk about their abortions. Maybe ten will admit to regret. If those ten do it, then you know there are those among the ninety who are regretting it to. You have a critical mass of testimonies to make abortion-minded women reconsider their decision.

Think about it. If I'm going to have life-altering surgery, and 10 people say that they regretted their decision to have that surgery, I'm going to think twice, regardless of my views on the morality of the surgery-- and I might think it's perfectly fine. I had Lasik surgery last year, and if ten people out of a hundred had said that they had regretted their decision, I would not have paid $4000 on a procedure that could have ruined my eyesight or my life.

There's a reason why abortion is kept under wraps by the abortion industry itself.

It's just an ugly procedure that kills a human being.

Live tweeting it will not change that. In fact, I think this whole PR stunt shows the lack of understanding of the dynamics of the abortion debate.

The pro-choice side has always emphasized the secretiveness of the situation. They use euphemistic language to describe the procedure-- never plain English. It's either grossly simplified language that glosses over the details (e.g. "the uterus is emptied of its contents") or it is highly medicalized to the point of asepticizing the procedure.

If abortion supporters had wanted to demystify the procedure, they could have passed out pictures of what aborted fetuses looked like 20 years ago. But they didn't do that. It took Bernard Nathanson's The Silent Scream to show abortion to the masses. Did abortion supporters repeat the experiment and show what a "real" abortion looks like on an ultrasound? Of course not. Because they don't want people to know the truth.

There's a reason why they want to keep the focus on the woman and how it "saves" women, and not on the problems it can engender, or on the fetus.

If abortion supporters wanted women to know the truth about the procedure, they would show them. It's not like they don't have the technology or the opportunity to make the plain facts available to people. Take a 4D ultrasound, find a volunteer, film an abortion, post it on Youtube or some other website. Voila. The truth about abortion.

Why is that so hard?

It's hard because it would prove pro-lifers right.

Angie went out and live tweeted her abortion thinking that if she showed it to be a safe, harmless procedure from her obviously biased perspective (would she live tweet something going wrong with her abortion? One wonders) then that would make women feel comfortable with their abortion decision.

The problem is: it doesn't address what makes people uncomfortable about abortion. Abortion supporters have trouble admitting this: what makes people uncomfortable about abortion is that it kills a fetus. They can focus on the so-called misogyny all they like, if they don't confront the fetus, they will never get anywhere.

But they won't. They instinctively know that the minute they focus on the fetus, their cause is dead.

This is why the culture of abortion will implode. It cannot face the truth. And a culture based on lies can only last so long. Whether the pro-aborts say nothing or try to demystify abortion, they will hang themselves one way or another. Their cause is doomed. It's just a matter of time before the fall of legal abortion and the advent of fetal rights.

More on the Bill Whatcott decision

This is a very important line from the ruling:

"It is acceptable, in a democracy, for individuals to comment on the morality of another's behaviour. ... Anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right to freedom of expression."

I almost wish it were appealed to the Supreme Court, because I have a hunch it would rule in Whatcott's favour, and we could finally remove all doubt that we have a right to criticize homosexual behaviour.

Gays and Allies Have Hissy Fit At Mass

Over Gay Carnival Prince who was denied Communion.

But the Carnival Prince has something of a point:

The man at the centre of the row has said he just wants equal treatment - if he is regarded as a sinner, he wants the priest to refuse communion to all other sinners too.

Well, he's wrong about the reason why he was denied communion.

He was denied communion not just because he's a sinner, but because he's a promoter of mortally sinful behaviour.

But let's not single this guy out. Let's deny communion to all public figures who promote gravely sinful behaviour, like pro-abort politicians for instance.

Had priests consistently applied Canon Law on this manner, maybe they would have understood beforehand.

In any case, since the left wing of the Church has become the useful idiots of the gay lobby, you can expect more of this entitlement mentality in the future.

Islamic scholar says suicide bombers will 'go to hell'

Just spreading the news!

A respected Islamic scholar will publish a seminal fatwa tomorrow that unequivocally condemns terrorism and warns suicide bombers that they will “go to hell” for their attacks.

Pakistani-born Shaikh Dr Tahir ul-Qadri is launching his fatwa in London as part of a drive to combat the power of jihadist rhetoric on the web and provide English-speaking Muslims with an authoritative theological explanation detailing why terrorism is not permitted.

Although numerous fatwas condemning terrorism have been released by scholars around the world since 9/11, Shaikh Dr Qadri’s 600-page ruling is both significant and unusual because it is one of the few available in English and online.

Now, the terrorists must be marginalized within their own communities and around the world. Unfortunately, these violent streams of Islam have too much currency in certain parts of the world.