Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform - See it. Believe it. End it.

The Sky is Falling on Abortion "Rights"

jvanmaren — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:17:49 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

Change public opinion, and you’ll change public policy.

This has been the mantra of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and its affiliates for years. And with the youth activated like it never has been before, that is swiftly becoming a reality.

I realize that it is dangerous to look across the border to our Southern neighbors when making comparisons, because Canadians pride themselves on being, first and foremost, not Americans. But when we see Canadian youth rising up to take on Canada’s perceived abortion consensus, a quick look to the United States tells us just how effective that will be.

While American commentators such as David Frum have urged Republicans to give up on the abortion fight and let it sink into irrelevance, nothing could be further from the truth. Each year seems to bring more pro-life legislation than the last, and pro-“choice” activists are beginning to notice, with one Planned Parenthood director noting worriedly that “the sky is falling on Roe v. Wade.” Last year brought 92 pieces of pro-life legislation across the US.

It was this phenomenon that compelled the head of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) Nancy Keenan to announce last week that she would be leaving her post as president of the organization. The reason? According to the Washington Post, she is “leaving out of concern for the future of the pro-choice movement—and thinks she could be holding it back.”

According to the Post:

“In recent years, Keenan has worried about an 'intensity gap' on abortion rights among millennials, which the group considers to be the generation of Americans born between 1980 and 1991. While most young, anti-abortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue, NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters. If the pro-choice movement is to successfully defend abortion rights, Keenan contends, it needs more young people in leadership roles, including hers.”

And how has the pro-life movement been changing the abortion consensus? In spite of National Post columnist Chris Selley’s recent sneer at the idea that documentation of the abortion procedure could sway hearts and minds, abortion advocates are admitting that these tactics are working. According to Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice and Kate Michelman, a former leader of NARAL:

“In recent years, the ant-abortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate.”

The pro-life movement, they admitted, has “succeeded in shifting public attention from broad support for legal abortion to strong support for restricting access. Twenty years ago, being pro-life was declasse. Now it is a respectable point of view.”

Abortion advocates in Canada may scoff at the idea that the pro-life movement is making gains by citing political unwillingness to discuss abortion, but they know as well as we do that politicians become willing to discuss things very quickly when they feel the pressure from the people. We have no intention of trying to force top-down change. We have every intention of shattering the supposed abortion “consensus” in the minds of everyday Canadians.

These tactics have worked in the United States because people are beginning to recognize that none of the facts line up with an ideology based on killing pre-born children. This isn’t a right versus left debate. This is a human rights debate. Abortion advocates say the sky is falling on Roe v. Wade.

This just in: R v. Morgentaler is next.

William Proxmire: The Man Who Fought Genocide

jvanmaren — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:16:54 +0000

by Alanna Gomez

“Perseverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody.” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

It may come as a surprise to many, but it took the United States 40 years to ratify the U.N.’s Genocide Convention, originally adopted in 1948. Countries such as Vietnam, Turkey, Guatemala and Rwanda took responsibility for preventing acts of genocide in the international community before the U.S.A. followed suit. In total, 97 nations had ratified the convention, binding themselves to preventing and punishing genocide, before the U.S. Senate finally passed legislation.

Senator William Proxmire, a Democrat from Wisconsin, decided early on in his career in public office to make ratification of the treaty a priority. He felt the U.S. Senate’s failure to act on the pact was a national shame. The last time the Senate had entertained discussion on the subject was in 1953, before the pact was removed from consideration, through a deal between President Eisenhower and Senator John Bricker. It was incomprehensible to Senator Proxmire that his country, traditionally known as a defender of human rights, had failed so miserably to take steps towards ensuring those rights for all people around the world.

With this mindset, Senator Proxmire made it his mission to compel the Senate to take action on this important human rights convention. He announced to a largely empty Senate chamber that he was embarking on a campaign to ensure the U.S. ratified the Genocide Convention of 1948. As such, on January 11, 1967, he gave the first of 3,211 original speeches on genocide which he would deliver on the Senate floor over the next 21 years.

It was a lengthy and difficult journey, far longer than the Senator at first anticipated. In his mind, genocide was the most outrageous crime he could conceive of; it should hardly take much effort to convince people that the U.S. ought to ratify the convention. While several like-minded politicians did join him in his cause over the years, his critics were far more outspoken. In one of his many speeches, Senator Proxmire noted that the true foes of human rights throughout the world were not the outspoken groups or individuals who opposed him but rather the ignorance and indifference on behalf of the majority of Americans who would otherwise support ratification.

Throughout Proxmire’s five terms in office, the US government had many opportunities to respond to genocidal acts throughout the world and consistently failed to do so, most notably in Cambodia. In 1968, Nigeria sought to suppress the resistance of its Christian Ibo population, through starvation methods. On the Senate floor, Proxmire implored the president to intervene with the following words: “…the need of the starving is obvious. Indeed, it cries to the high heaven for action. And to the degree that the nations of the world allow themselves to be lulled by the claim that the elimination of hundreds of thousands of their fellows is an internal affair, to that degree will our moral courage be bankrupt and our humane concern for other a thin veneer. Our responsibility grows awesomely with the death of each innocent man, woman and child.”

Not everyone would have had the stamina to keep up the fight for so many years, amidst much cold indifference. His whole career in public office was distinguished by the fact that he “believed in the positive power of government to make a more just and humane national community”, always siding on the side of the underdog. A disciplined man, Proxmire ran the 4 miles from home to work in the Capital every day. He didn’t miss a single one of the ten 252 Senate roll calls he was in office for, setting a still unchallenged record. In an article written after his death in 2005, the Senator’s spirit of tenacity is evident. He lost 3 races for Wisconsin governor until he finally won in 1957. In the final two elections he ran in, he didn’t accept any campaign contributions, only spending money on return postage for unsolicited cheques.

Finally, in 1986, after 19 years, conditions were right for a full Senate vote on the genocide treaty. A vote of 83-11 secured passage of a ratification resolution. It took another two years to implement legislation making genocide a crime under U.S. federal law. After more hard work on the part of Proxmire and his allies, the Senate finally passed the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, named the Proxmire Act. Sadly, Senator Proxmire was not invited to attend the signing of this act.

William Proxmire never championed a cause because it was popular. He did what he believed was right. When a fellow senator saluted him in the Senate after the vote on the genocide treaty, he described Proxmire as a man “who says if something is worth doing, it does not matter to him that it takes 15 years to do it.” The world needs more men and women with this kind of dedication, to fight for human rights around the globe with determination and perseverance. What will our own records show?

Article mentioned:

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-12-19/politics/proxmire.shields_1_genocide-treaty-golden-fleece-awards-transport-plane/2?_s=PM:POLITICS

Sorry, We Started Debating Without You.

jvanmaren — Wed, 09 May 2012 19:08:00 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

The cat is out of the bag.

For the last several months, politicians and commentators have been debating about whether or not the abortion debate should be opened (as my colleague Jojo Ruba noted, if you have to debate that a debate is closed, it probably isn’t.) Abortion activists such as Joyce Arthur trumpeted that Conservative MP Gordon Connor’s statement “society has moved on” had dealt a stunning blow to the pro-life movement. Almost everybody who writes for the National Post, conversely, came out in shockingly emphatic columns calling for a re-examination of the gruesome status quo.

The thing is, while abortion movement and the politicians have been calling out in their echo chamber, desperately trying to suggest that we all go home and please be quiet, pro-lifers have been mobilizing. An article in the Toronto Star yesterday highlights the activism groups CCBR has been starting across the country, as well as the ever-increasing influence of the National Campus Life Network and the burgeoning Campaign Life Coalition Youth.

Shockingly, it turns out that increasing amounts of young people aren’t buying the philosophically inept and scientifically bankrupt worldview of an outdated pro-“choice” movement. Even desperate attempts to gain support by donning genitalia costumes, stripping naked in front of displays, and wearing funny hats, hasn’t really resonated beyond giving hard-working pro-life activists comic relief. An angry Facebook group called “Death to the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform” ended up rapidly filling with debates about abortion.

Even Joyce Arthur was forced to admit that there seems to be a demographic shift, telling the Toronto Star that “definitely there is a huge surge in young people being active in the anti-choice movement.” She tries to soften these statements on the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Facebook page, assuring her supporters that our “commitment is probably overblown” and insinuating that once a few more pro-lifers get pregnant, we’ll all slink off to join her in the twilight zone. She also notes that “ignorance plays a huge role, unfortunately.” On that point, challenge accepted. Our organization is fully willing to debate anyone ARCC would like to send our way—and in public!

Canada is starting to notice that while the older generation bickers about whether or not to open the abortion debate, we just did. Maybe parliamentarians don’t want to debate it yet, but we’re debating it with our peers on the streets. We’re bringing our message of universal human rights onto university and college campuses. We’re bringing our message to Canada’s mailboxes. And we’re in this to end it.

I’ve noted before that a movement based on killing off the young can’t expect a lot of young people in their movement. If you abort your children, you have no one to pass on your worldview to—instead you have to try to pass it on to others. We’re not buying it.

And here’s a promise from pro-life youth: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

They're Not Human Beings--So Welcome to the Buffet.

jvanmaren — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:03:38 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

As if China needed any more negative press on their barbaric One Child Policy after blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng’s dramatic escape from house arrest, multiple news outlets are now reporting that South Korean officials have seized thousands of capsules and pills that reportedly contain the powdered flesh of fetuses and babies. The stomach-turning story reports that, since August, over 17,000 of these capsules have been seized from smugglers attempting to bring them in from--you guessed it--China.

First it was details of forced sterilizations, grotesque forced abortions that included women being strapped to chairs while the butchers of Chinese officialdom tore their offspring from their womb, and babies being drowned in buckets. Now reports indicate that cannibalistic capsules were created in factories where the corpses of Chinese babies were chopped like meat, dried out on stoves, and ground into powder. The purpose of these capsules? In a myth akin to the idea that sex with a virgin could cure AIDs, apparently some believe that consuming a dead child can ward off disease. Another report that I desperately hope is inaccurate indicates that they could be used as sexual performance enhancers, grotesquely completing this hellish horror story—have sex, kill the resulting baby, and then use the killed baby to enhance sex.

My greatest fear upon reading these reports was that people would no longer have the capacity to be shocked and repulsed. After all, until a concerted pro-life boycott ended the practice last month, PepsiCo was using aborted fetal cell lines as flavour enhancers. The biotech company utilizing these “flavour programs,” Senomyx, is still used by corporations such as Kraft Foods and Nestle. These facts have been public knowledge for some time, and yet there has been minimal if any public reaction to this abhorrent practice outside of the pro-life community.

It’s easy to bemoan the increasing reports of atrocities against the very young coming out of China. One might rightly note that in the Confucian China of the past, a child falling into a well would be rescued. But in today’s Communist dystopia a child is more likely to get dropped down a well than pulled out. But are we in Canada any better?

The pro-“choice” movement must admit the hideous slippery slope that their worldview has pushed us down. If abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, for any or no reason, should remain legal, then what is wrong with utilizing the remains of these pre-born innocents? If they aren’t human, then surely we can use their severed limbs for some productive purpose? If not for making sure our junk food tastes good, then perhaps as sexual performance enhancers?

The fact that this is all grotesque should be clear to all. Surely we can still recognize that the remains of human beings should not be used as some sort of cannibalistic pick-a-part. And perhaps, if we can recognize that truth, we can recognize that it is abhorrent to turn living humans into corpses in the first place.

Betty Anne Waters: A Conviction Like No Other

jvanmaren — Fri, 04 May 2012 14:18:51 +0000

by Stephanie Gray

She became a lawyer to fight only one case. And after she won it, she returned to her job at a pub.

Betty Anne Waters’ impetus for becoming a lawyer was anything but ordinary. Her brother had attempted suicide, and in an effort to save him from self-inflicted death, the duo made a deal: “If I promise you I’ll go back to school,” Betty Anne recalled negotiating, “Will you promise me you’ll stay alive?”

And he did—long enough for Betty to become the lawyer who would free her brother from an 18-year-long unjust jail sentence for a crime he did not commit.

In 1983, an innocent woman in Massachusetts was murdered, and in a miscarriage of justice, an innocent man, Kenny Waters, was falsely convicted of that murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole, and spent almost the next two decades behind bars.

Kenny and Betty Anne’s lives had been far from easy: they grew up in a chaotic and troubled home. Their seven siblings came from multiple fathers and the presence of police was common growing up. Betty Anne was a high school drop-out, and when she started on the long track for law school, she was a mother (soon-to-be single mother) of two young boys.

Becoming a lawyer is a significant accomplishment in and of itself, but throw in the challenging factors of Betty Anne’s life, and her story is nothing short of inspiring. She shows that the circumstances of our past do not have to determine the state of our future. She shows that persistence pays off. Most of all, she shows that love never fails.

“If you focus,” Betty Anne once said, “put one foot in front of the other, keep your eye on the end result, I think you can always get there, no matter what it is; you know, things happen along the way, you just go over the hurdle and keep on going.”

Hurdle after hurdle, Betty Anne persistently jumped over each one. And Kenny, helpless behind bars, had to simply wait.

Slowly but surely, the milestones came: graduation from college, graduation from law school, discovery of old evidence still containing DNA, and the use of new DNA-testing technology. And so it was to be: Betty Anne’s conviction that her brother was unjustly convicted could be—would be—proven true.

Kenny Waters entered jail at the age of 29. And thanks to years of sacrifice and self-surrender by his sister, in March 2001, at the age of 47, he was a free man.

In a heartbreaking twist, six months after his release, Kenny died when he slipped and fell on his head while walking from dinner with his mother. But Betty Anne noted that “Kenny had the best six months of his life.” For six months he experienced the world brand new—from fascination with cell phones and other new technology to awe at the largeness of Home Depot. Kenny lived in bondage. But he died in freedom. As he slipped away in the hospital, his ever-faithful sister Betty Anne was by his side. Kenny died knowing he was loved.

In 2010, Hollywood brought the siblings’ story to life in the film “Conviction.” Actress Hilary Swank, who played Betty Anne, said, “I was amazed that someone could be so selfless and, really, give her entire life to someone else. And her love for them—I was absolutely amazed, blown away. If you sat here with Betty Anne she would say ‘Well, I just did what everyone else would do.’”

Let’s hope so, Betty Anne. Let’s hope so.

Barack Obama's Dilemma: Chen Guangcheng and Dead American Babies

jvanmaren — Thu, 03 May 2012 20:16:48 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

Pro-life social media feeds and media everywhere are lighting up with the dramatic escape story of Chen Guangcheng, a blind Chinese human rights activist who has been a loud and consistent critic of China’s brutal and bloody One Child Policy, which includes forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

The situation at this point seems rather confusing. Chen, who has been under stringent house arrest with his family for several years after a four year stint in jail for defying China’s Communist government, apparently escaped on the night of April 22, scaling a wall in spite of blindness and fleeing with the help of fellow human rights activists hundreds of miles to the US embassy in Beijing. He was soon back in Chinese custody, with the Americans saying he left of his own volition and Chen saying he left because the Chinese officials were threatening the lives of his family. American officials are faced with a very slippery dilemma.

I would propose that this situation is tricky for the Obama Administration for more reasons than the oft-cited economic attachment to China. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever to hold office in the United States, so a human rights activist dealing with the issue of abortion is a sticky one to say the least. Chinese babies are one thing—but what if the discussion happened to stumble upon the pile of pre-born American corpses the Obama Administration so desperately wants to ignore?

Let me provide an illustration. In a phenomenal editorial yesterday, National Post editor Jonathan Kay published several anecdotes of the abortion culture in China, gut-wrenching in their descriptiveness:

“'Officials held her on the bed and gave her a poisonous shot, despite that her due day was soon,' according to a prepared statement from Chinese lawyer Jiang Tianyong that was presented to a U.S. Congressional hearing in 2009. 'The needle went through her belly to the nine-mouth old fetus. Li said, ‘At first, I could feel my child was kicking; after a while it stopped.’ Ten hours later, Li gave birth to a dead baby. The official threw the dead baby into a bucket.'”

Now consider this anecdote:

“One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was about 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about 10 inches long, about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy that he had trying to breathe. Toward the end of his life he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his little heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, tied his hands together with a string, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our other dead patients go.”

That story comes from Jill Stanek’s congressional testimony on behalf of the Born Alive Infant’s Act, which was designed to protect children who survived an abortion and entitle them to medical care. Guess who voted against this bill?

You’re probably already with me: President Barack Obama.

China is not the only place where barbaric things happen with a repulsive regularity. China is simply the place where they are happening by state-enforced physical coercion (although North America has its fair share of forced abortions.) Chen Guangcheng is a hero, yes. But for the Obama Administration to recognize his heroism, they might just have to recognize the fact that in the stories of gruesome forced abortions, there were two victims. Is a dead baby tossed in a bucket any more tragic than a Down Syndrome child abandoned to die in a medical waste room? Both are tragic. And both are crimes against humanity.

The Obama Administration, however, does not consider the some of the victims Chen seeks to defend to be worthy of protection. Rather, the Obama Administration has its own skeletons in the closet it wants to ignore. And I fervently hope that Chen Guangcheng does not become one of them.

Hedy Fry's Twisted Compassion

jvanmaren — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:48:57 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

During last week’s parliamentary debate about MP Stephen Woodworth’s proposed Motion 13, Liberal MP Hedy Fry inadvertently brought up a point that reveals our national obliviousness to irony as well as a certain schizophrenia in regards to how we value human life.

After noting that Stephen Harper had promised not to touch the issues of abortion and the death penalty, she stated, "He broke that promise when his party refused to seek clemency for Ronald Allen Smith, a Canadian on death row in the United States. By refusing to seek clemency for Mr. Smith, the Conservative Party reversed the long-standing practice of seeking clemency for Canadians on death row abroad. The Prime Minister and his government were also in contravention of the United Nations convention to abolish the death penalty, to which Canada is a signatory."

It is interesting that Hedy Fry chose to bring up the death penalty during a debate that ended up being about abortion and the value of human life. Ms. Fry and the vast majority of the Canadian left are firmly opposed to the death penalty based on the argument that it is cruel and unusual punishment. However, these same politicians reacted with outrage to the mere suggestion that medical science should be consulted to inform us on whether or not we were tragically ignoring the rights of the youngest members of our society.

The point I’m making here does not concern the death penalty. There is much disagreement on capital punishment within the pro-life community, ranging from total disagreement to ambivalence. However, surely we can all agree on one thing: If it’s wrong to kill guilty human beings, shouldn’t it be even more obviously wrong to kill innocent human beings?

In fact, the UN-adopted International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights even states that the death penalty cannot be carried out on a pregnant woman. Why? Because there is an implicit recognition that we are dealing with two human beings, and that the innocent one should not suffer for the crimes of the guilty.

If the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, consider this: Some abortionists have suggested delivering anaesthetic to the pre-born child before abortions so the child will not go through excruciating pain. “Fetal pain” legislation has passed in some jurisdictions in the United States due to the recognition that abortion causes enormous pain to the victim. Pro-“choice” activists have for the most part rejected even these measures.

To sum up: If you are a murderer convicted of multiple killings, such as Ronald Smith, you will incur an enormous amount of sympathy from the Canadian left in general. However, if you are pre-born child, regardless of which stage of development you are in or how much pain you will experience at the hands of the abortionist, the mere suggestion that the medical science be examined is met with righteous indignation.

This, Ms. Fry, is not compassion. This is a blatant inconsistency of the most dangerous sort. If we as a nation have agreed that capital punishment should be dispensed with based on the premise that human life is valuable, then it stands to reason that those most innocent members of our nation’s population, those in the womb, are entitled to the same protection. Then again, I suppose it’s easy to ignore victims incapable of voting.

Mother's Day Fundraiser!

jvanmaren — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:22:49 +0000

As Mother's Day is approaching, we are reminded of how important pro-life work is: striving to make sure women are mothers of living children, not dead ones. As CCBR works tirelessly to spare pre-born children, and women, from the death, and woundedness, that abortion brings, would you consider supporting us through a Mother's Day gift fundraising program? Here are the details:

One of our supporters sells Silpada Jewelry and if you purchase a product from her in CCBR's name, 20% of all jewellery purchases will be donated to CCBR!

Purchase for yourself, or someone special (like your Mom for Mother's Day!) gorgeous handcrafted .925 Sterling Silver Jewellery (Silpada jewellery is .925 sterling silver and semi-precious stone fine jewellery--no nickel or lead. And they have a 60 day refund or exchange policy, plus they offer a life-time purchase warranty on all pieces).

All orders will be delivered Canada Post to the purchasers address.

So here are the easy ways you can help CCBR benefit from these jewellery sales:

1. FORWARD THIS FUND RAISER OFFER TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS, inviting them to participate in this Fund Raiser!

2. Shop On-Line With Independent SILPADA Designs Representative JOYCE

MCLEOD:

a) On line through the Shop Now Link- search for/enter Hostess:

CCBR

b) By phone (905) 847-4661 with JOYCE MCLEOD

c) By email at mcleodj@cogeco.ca with JOYCE MCLEOD

If you would like to receive a catalogue or make an appointment to view the jewellery please contact JOYCE directly.

Of course, if you don't wish to buy jewelry you can still donate to CCBR--as we prepare for our summer program and as our staff increases from 11 to 18, we would be most grateful for your financial support. But if you're looking to buy jewellery and make such a gift for yourself or others, then please consider purchasing Silpada jewellery through Joyce. This way, you're saving lives!

Thank you for supporting CCBR!

ETK Podcast 11 - No Debating Allowed: Our Country's Shameful Stance on Inquiry

jshaw — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:59:55 +0000

This week Jonathon and Stephanie discuss the debate in the House of Commons surrounding Motion 312, Stephen Woodworth's motion to discuss and debate when humans become humans.

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_11_-_no_debating_allowed_our_countries_shameful_stance_on_inquiry.mp3	29.46 MB

William Lloyd Garrison: The Fearless Abolitionist

jvanmaren — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:04:19 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

“The compact with which exists between the North and the South is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”

These words of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison are a summation of his entire life: Unfettered rage against the injustice of slavery. He began writing publicly at the age of fourteen while doing an apprenticeship for the Newburyport Herald of Springfield, Massachusetts in 1819. Shortly thereafter, he began his own newspaper with a partner, the Free Press, also writing for the National Philanthropist and the Genius of Universal Emancipation before starting his own anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, in 1831.

Garrison was quite willing to place himself at risk by his writing. While writing for the Genius of Universal Emancipation in Baltimore, he was brought to court by a slave trader after he reported on the barbaric practices of the inter-state slave trade in his famous “Black List” column. Garrison landed in jail for seven weeks as a result. When he was bailed out by a fellow abolitionist, he headed to New England to found The Liberator.

In the very first issue of The Liberator he wrote: “I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.”

A powerful believer in the ability to enact social reform by nonviolent and passive resistance, Garrison did more than write. He founded the New England Anti-Slavery Society, and co-founded the American Anti-Slavery Society. His views led him to become the victim of violence more than once, at one point having to be rescued by the police from a lynch mob determined to hang him.

When the American Civil War resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery, William Llloyd Garrison declared the goals of the anti-slavery movement accomplished: "My vocation, as an Abolitionist, thank God, has ended." He worked to bring about women’s suffrage and other notable causes, before passing away in 1879.

His words should encourage us still: “The success of any great moral enterprise does not depend upon numbers.” Indeed, it depends upon justice and truth. Truly Garrison`s example should inspire us all in our fight for all human beings to be recognized and protected as such.

The Radical Handmaids' Picnic On The Hill

jvanmaren — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:01:33 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

Question: Would the media call a rally with only fifty people in attendance “huge”? Would it gain the attention of the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and many other Canadian media outlets?

Answer: If it’s a group called “The Radical Handmaids” wearing funky crimson red costumes and it’s the only physical opposition to Motion 312, then yes!

But seriously. Here’s a picture of the abortion “rally” on Parliament Hill:

Don’t see it? It’s what appears to be a small picnic on the right. Either that or a protest by the Parliament Hill Cleaning Association. Or maybe the Liberal Party Caucus asserting their relevance.

Now, I realize that the Canadian public is not fully ready for the abortion legislation that the pro-life movement desires. We have much work to do yet. But what the media doesn’t realize is that the Canadian public does not line up with the values of abortion “crowd” either. When the three-headed Cereberus, guardian of the gates of the Hades, almost outnumbers your “Open Season on Babies” protest in a quick head count, you don’t have a very active fan base. And that’s in spite of the fact that you’ve tried to combine the fun costumes of Halloween with the cheery warmth of a bra-burning.

Now, just for a fun comparison, let's take a look at how many people showed up to the March for Life last year:

That’s right. Around fifteen thousand, the vast majority of them young and an increasing number of them dedicated to actually ending abortion in Canada. While Canada’s ever-shrinking pro-choice crowd might be the status quo for now due to the fact that they only have to play defence while the media covers for them, they are increasingly a stagnant pond with a few bullfrogs letting out the occasional televised relativistic ribbit. Once the cameras leave, they haven’t got much going on anymore. Important lesson: If you want a youth movement, don't champion a movement based on killing off the youth.

And I must say that when I realize that our biological arguments are being combated only with their costumes and “knitted wombs,” it’s reassuring. Because it’s only a matter of time before the Canadian public realizes that truth is more impressive than creative knitting.

Going To The Dogs

jvanmaren — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:34:54 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

The ever increasing sufferings of our canine friends have been quite prominent in the news cycle of late, from Mitt Romney’s unorthodox methods of transporting them to President Obama’s unorthodox history of eating them. Not to be left out, today Canada has its own big dog story: The CBC breathlessly informs us that in Toronto, a Shetland sheepdog was stabbed. (Gasp.)

Now, I like dogs. We always had dogs around our place when I was growing up. I understand how people have a close affinity with “a man’s best friend” to the point where it can be extremely painful to lose such a pet, although I must admit I've never had one harpooned. But, seriously? With everything going on across Canada and the world, this is worthy enough to make it onto the national news?

Apparently this clearly “first world problem” is of such significance that yes, it does merit a prominent spot on the news cycle. After all, the idea of a 68 year-old man spearing a dog with a broomstick does seem rather unique--anyone else thinking Clint Eastwood? But this is what gets us outraged?

Indeed. Here are a few of the over two hundred comments from the mourning public:

“If you don't believe in harsh penalties for cruelty to animals or wrongfully causing the death of an animal -- then you don't believe in law and order.”

“I’d honestly support the death penalty in cases of animal abuse, I’m sick of the arrogance of humanity.”

“So he was walking in public with a homemade spear and he, allegedly, brutally attacked and killed an animal. He's not being held - not for a psych evaluation - not to protect public safety. Will there be a child next?”

I could point out here that if the man had chosen to spear a child, the government wouldn’t have arrested him for it. As long as he picked the right age range, they would have subsidized it and subcontracted the job out to a “clinic” worker.

I could point out that what I found exceptionally depressing about the hundreds of comments from readers is that with the exception of a few beacons of reason, people showed far more sympathy for a collie than they do for human tragedy. For example, this collie catastrophe more than doubled the number of comments received by the story of an explosion at a sawmill in Prince George, which resulted in the death of one worker and injured dozens more.

But really, I just think we should save our outrage quota for things that matter. The fact that we have the luxury of getting angry over the death of someone else’s pet is one that few societies have ever become pampered enough to attain. Hey, I’m with you. Nobody thinks it's cool to stab Lassie. There should even be ramifications for it. But when it's the screams of children versus the barking of dogs, I just can’t seem to shake this annoying sense of perspective.

A Priest’s Experience with “Choice” Chain

jvanmaren — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:30:21 +0000

by Father Matthew Wertin

Some time ago, I attended a pro-life activism training day led by Ruth (Lobo) Shaw of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and at the end of the day she led us in a “Choice” Chain. I was surprised by this at first, and a little nervous about participating. For all the pro-life activism I have been involved with over the years, I have never used graphic images. Ruth trained us very well, especially with a hands-on session in acting out the various scenarios we would most likely encounter on the streets. In fact, when we were out on the streets, things happened exactly as she explained they would, and what she taught us really prepared us and truly paid off.

People have a very powerful reaction to the images, and many made this reaction vocal. Unfortunately many that day did not want to have a civil conversation about the real issues, as they simply wanted to tell us how offensive we were, how wrong we were, and how we should not be doing what we were doing. We did have some support, as well as some people walking by without comment, but I was shocked by all the negative reactions we did encounter. The truth about abortion is not an easy thing to deal with, but hiding it does nothing but help the horror continue. As the famous Catholic author Flannery O’Connor said, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.” I admire CCBR and their willingness to engage the public with the truth about abortion, ever ready to explain, with loving concern, what it is, what it does, and why it is never okay, in any situation, but that there are positive alternatives.

Furthermore, CCBR always eagerly and readily supports those who are employing other means to help end abortion (E.g. 40 Days for Life, etc.), they keep inviting and offering others to be open to what they have to offer, and I feel very much loved and supported by them. I am truly grateful for being given this experience, as it has opened my eyes a little more, strengthened my faith, and given me new energy to fight the good fight in working to abolish abortion. I hope that many of my dear brother priests, many of whom are scared, busy, not aware of what is at stake, and who possibly have never suffered in life or had their hearts broken by the truth of abortion, would soon join me and never look back.

Father Matthew Wertin

Priest of the Diocese of Pueblo, Colorado (USA)

Student of Canon Law at SPU – Ottawa, ON

100% Pro-Life

Minnie Vautrin: The Woman Who Would Not Leave Nanking

jvanmaren — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:16:19 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

In the history of the 20^th Century, there are few events quite as infamous as the 1937 Rape of Nanking. Iris Chang’s 1997 book The Rape of the Nanking exposed and immortalized the horrific events that few Westerners had even heard of, writing a story that seemed to be relentless in its pain and despair. The Rape of Nanking seems to be a story without hope, without redemption, and without any glimmer of selfless humanity. However, there were those who fought to stop the evil. One of them was a woman named Minnie Vautrin.

Minnie was a missionary who first travelled to China to work as an educator in 1912. She soon became the president of Ginling College in Nanking, staying there even when the majority of faculty fled the approaching Japanese invasion. She did not consider herself to be doing anything heroic, but rather thought of her actions like many educators do. A diary entry from April 14, 1940 reveals how she felt: “I’m about at the end of my energy. Can no longer forge ahead and make plans for the work, but on every hand there seems to be obstacles of some kind. I wish I could go on furlough at once, but who will do the thinking for the Exp. Course?” She was dedicated to the task of educating, and when the Japanese came into Nanking, she did not leave, defying the orders of the American embassy.

The Rape of Nanking began in December of 1937 when the Japanese entered the city, and soon became an orgy of raping, looting, murder, torture, and sadism. Actions too terrible to warrant description were perpetrated on women of all ages, and the Yangtze River ran red with blood for days on end as the Japanese soldiers beheaded thousands of unarmed Chinese soldiers. And in the midst of all this, Minnie Vautrin tried with all her might to protect whomever she could.

Her diary entry from December 16, 1937 describes the carnage: “There probably is no crime that has not been committed in this city today. Thirty girls were taken from the language school last night, and today I have heard scores of heartbreaking stories of girls who were taken from their homes…Tonight a truck passed in which there were eight or ten girls, and as it passed they called out ‘Ging ming! Ging ming!’—save our lives…Oh, God, control the cruel beastliness of the soldiers in Nanking.”

According to a prominent book written on Vautrin: “When the Japanese soldiers ordered Vautrin to leave the campus, she replied: ‘This is my home. I cannot leave.’ Facing down the blood-stained bayonets constantly waved in her face, Vautrin shielded the desperate Chinese who sought asylum behind the gates of the college. Vautrin exhausted herself defying the Japanese army and caring for the refugees after the siege ended in March 1938. She even helped the women locate husbands and sons who had been taken away by the Japanese soldiers. She taught destitute widows the skills required to make a meager living and provided the best education her limited sources would allow to the children in desecrated Nanking.”

When Japanese soldiers tried to ransack the university, Minnie refused to let them enter. When soldiers tried to abduct refugees under her care, she bravely stood in between them. And when the Japanese finally completed their hellish masterpiece with over three hundred thousand people butchered, Minnie started the hard work of caring for the city's wounded.

Minnie Vautrin is credited with saving up to ten thousand Chinese women and children at the risk of her own life. She saw her responsibility to those around her, and answered that call unswervingly. Her actions during one of the century’s greatest crimes should be an inspiration to all of us who desire to make a difference in the lives of those who suffer around us.

Motion 312: Are Pre-Born Children "Disposables" Or "Dependents"?

jvanmaren — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:28:34 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

Stephen Woodworth’s bid to examine the biology of the pre-born, Motion 312, has terrified Canada’s abortion advocates like a mirror terrifies a vampire.

Joyce Arthur insisted so loudly that asserting the humanity of the pre-born child is “begging the question” that she couldn’t hear the scientific consensus of embryologists and medical professionals. (She may believe that humans can give birth to the offspring of other species. Further research required.) Jane Cawthorne, the author of the “Abortion Monologues,” obliviously asked, “How can two persons reside in one body?” while asserting that it was wrong to enforce “moral beliefs” on someone else. As long as they’re born, of course.

It’s always interesting when the advocates for a point of view are completely terrified of an inquiry—not a law, not a referendum, not even a statement—an inquiry. It would seem to indicate that they know they’ve been blatantly lying, and that they’re quite afraid everyone else will know it shortly as well.

But aside from the regular tired tripe about patriarchy and people being obsessed with women’s sexuality, the one point that abortion advocates have been constantly trotting out is that the pre-born child is completely dependent upon the mother, and therefore can be killed for any or no reason. Which brings up an interesting question: In what other situation is this “logic” applied?

We all would agree that the pre-born child is completely dependent upon the mother. It is also obvious to anyone of cognitive function that the reason he or she is completely dependent upon the mother is because for our species, at that age, that is the way things should be. We could also point out that a newborn child is completely dependent upon others for survival and so on.

But isn’t it true that in our society, the dependency of one human being actually correspondingly heightens the responsibility of those around her? For example, I’m twenty-three. I could go to my parent’s house and ask for supper, and they would be completely within their rights to refuse me for any number of reasons. But what if my little eight-year-old sister was refused meals by my parents? Now suddenly the government would step in—because my parents have a legal obligation to their dependents.

You see, in a compassionate society, we do not refer to those who are dependent upon others as “disposable,” but as “dependents.” An enormous number of laws and regulations ensure that those who need more care—the young, the disabled, the elderly—are provided with that care by those of us who are capable of providing it. Ironically, when the abortion crowd loudly points out the dependency of the pre-born child, they’re making our case, not theirs.

But at least the fallacy-ridden Jane Cawthorne made one excellent point in a recent interview. “These people never give up,” she told the Calgary Journal, “and they’ll never give up until abortion’s completely recriminalized, because that’s their ultimate goal.”

Amen, sister.

Bashing Motherhood

jvanmaren — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:57:09 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

I couldn’t help but notice that vicious attacks on the ideals of feminism were rampant in the news this week. And by feminism, I don’t mean the “your pre-born children are worthless, gender is a social construct” feminists of whom Peter Kreeft wittily noted: “If they’re feminists, then cannibals are chefs.” Here I refer to the fact that women are the intellectual (and otherwise) equals of men, and that feminine traits are invaluable and necessary to society at large.

I’m sure many of you have noticed the hubbub taking place in the US. While political races--especially presidential primaries--are full of tempests in teapots, this one was more interesting than most. Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist and purported White House insider, commented on a talk show that Ann Romney, wife of presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney had “never worked a day in her life.” Ann Romney, incidentally, ran a household of five boys--scarcely what one would call ‘never working.’ (LifeSiteNews published an article yesterday revealing that the estimated market value for the work done by a stay-at-home mother in a year ends up being about $ 112,962.) After a backlash arose, Ms. Rosen attempted to backtrack by iterating that she was very aware of the hard work it took to raise children, as she has a child herself with her lesbian ex-partner.

Noted misogynist and late night jester Bill Maher, already famed for his extraordinarily crude and degrading comments concerning Sarah Palin and her daughters, chimed in to note that Ann Romney was just too lazy to leave the house and work, as if somehow the only legitimate work was work outside the home. This opinion seems to be increasing, as Christina Martin recently noted in an opinion piece outlining the discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace. If only Ann Romney had spent her time telling foul jokes on TV like Maher instead of helping to raise the next generation, the world would clearly be a better place. Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right...

On one hand, the left tells us that their worldview is all about “choice,” and that both traditional motherhood and a career are equally valid choices. Obviously, both sides of the abortion debate disagree with that statement to some extent. Pro-lifers reject the idea that we should permit pre-born children to be destroyed, even if this would allow someone to have a fulfilling career. Conversely, the left often seems to reject the idea of traditional family, and openly belittles those beautiful, self-sacrificing women we have the privilege of calling our mothers.

I’ve noted before that the pro-choice side of the debate often seems to demean and even at times despise the concept of motherhood, with all its beauty. For some reason, many in the “feminist” crowd, of which the repulsive Bill Maher would ironically consider himself a part of, even disdain those who choose to stay home and nurture their children. Never mind the fact that increasingly, mothers cannot afford to stay home with their children. Rosen, Maher and their ilk must mock those mothers who do.

Bill Maher, with his narcissistic, opulent lifestyle has no idea what sacrifice looks like. He mocks the sacrifices of others for a living. He could learn a lot from someone like Ann Romney.

ETK Podcast 10 - Withholding the Truth

jshaw — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:42:08 +0000

Stephanie Gray and Jonathon Van Maren are back! Censorship, an all-too-common issue in our work, has poked its ugly head into one of Stephanie's presentations in Toronto. Jonathon and Stephanie discuss what happened between presentations that made her second presentation difficult, but eye-opening. This is one podcast you won't want to miss.

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_10_-_withholding_the_truth.mp3	36.65 MB

Arland Williams: The Man In The Water

jvanmaren — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:06:30 +0000

by Alanna Gomez

Sometimes we have the idea, perhaps subconsciously, that heroes are a rare sort of breed. We mistakenly think that only truly exceptional people can be a hero. We think of someone like Mother Teresa, Oskar Schindler, or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., people who everyone knows about and admires. Of course, these people have done admirable and courageous things. However, what many of us fail to realize is that everyone has the capability of being a hero. You have the capability to be a hero, and I have the capability, if we only choose to do the right thing in each circumstance life presents to us, no matter how much more convenient it would be to make another, easier choice. Sometimes, the opportunity to make a choice like that appears when we are not at all anticipating it.

One frozen January afternoon, thirty years ago, a plane crashed into the Potomac River, which flows through Washington D.C. Due to mechanical problems, human error and poor weather, Air Florida Flight 90 had barely taken off from the Washington International Airport when it plunged into the 14^th Street bridge and killing four motorists before falling into the river. It then sunk beneath the icy surface.

Seventy-three passengers died upon impact. Six passengers survived the crash and managed to scramble out of the mangled plane, gathering around the slowly sinking tail section of the plane. Dozens of people watched, horrified, as these six survivors bobbed around in the freezing cold river. The weather was stormy and the river was frigid and icy. It looked impossible for the bystanders to do anything but watch as the six people slowly sank below the grey surface of the water.

Luckily, a helicopter rescue was attempted by two brave men, Donald Usher and Eugene Windsor. Another man, Lenny Skutnik, jumped into the river to drag one of the injured survivors to shore. The helicopter team managed to get close enough to the five remaining passengers floating in the water to pull them one by one to safety. At first, the rescue line was given to a middle-aged man, who passed it off to another passenger. When the helicopter came back, he did the same thing until the four other passengers had been delivered to safety. When the helicopter came back for the fifth time, the tail section had sunk, dragging the man with it.

Despite the great tragedy of the crash, and the many lives lost, his heroic actions entranced people watching this action unfold, along the river and viewers at home watching the live news coverage. This man was later identified as Arland Williams, who was a forty-six-year-old bank examiner returning home from a business trip. His selfless attitude towards perfect strangers has been analyzed by psychologists, philosophers and the media countless times over the past thirty years. They struggle to find reasons why he would have acted as he did, sacrificing his own life to ensure that the others were rescued. He was an ordinary man, and while he seemed to live a fairly good life, nothing in his life up until that point had been anything extraordinary or foreshadowed his future heroism. It seems that he simply chose to do what was right in that moment, despite the cost to him.

It is that kind of hero we are all called to be, for each other and for the pre-born children being slaughtered in our own neighborhoods. What kinds of choices will you make when you have the opportunity to save their lives?

Reflections of a Pregnant Pro-Lifer

jvanmaren — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:18:35 +0000

by Ruth (Lobo) Shaw

Today, my husband James and I had a life-changing experience. For the first time, we witnessed first-hand the visual presence of our precious baby (let's call him or her "Juth") in my womb.

As someone who has been actively involved in the pro-life movement for several years, the experience I had today has drastically altered my perception of pre-born children (including my own child), and of the power of visual technology when talking about pregnancy and abortion.

As James and I progressed through our forty minute ultrasound appointment, the technician proceeded to tell us which parts of Juth we were looking at- his or her face, hands, feet, fibulas, ankles, spine, on and on. Not only did she identify the body parts, but she measured the shape, and position of many of Juth’s body parts in order to ensure that all of them were developing ‘normally.’

Upon leaving the appointment, two things really struck me:

#1: Juth is a unique human being.

Beyond providing a healthy uterus and good nutrition, I have done nothing to facilitate his or her growth- this is not much different than providing a safe house and good food for your born children. How many times have I explained this concept while training pro-lifers and challenging abortion-minded folk? So many times!

I always knew that I was speaking the truth because it logically and scientifically made sense. But when you actually get to see these body parts developing inside of you, it makes the truth reality. In this sense, it became even more clear to me that I don’t own Juth, that Juth is not a part of me. Rather, he/she is a developing human being that has been entrusted to me. How is this any different than a parent raising a born child and ensuring that their child is safe and taken care of?

Upon seeing the ultrasound pictures of Juth, a friend asked me if I felt more connected to the baby after seeing him or her. After thinking about it, I realized that my connection to Juth was now clarified- Juth and I are two distinct persons. Seeing my child and having his or her body parts described to me helped me realize that my role, starting in the womb and onwards, is one of support. From fertilization onwards until our baby is born, James and I are the people cultivating an environment for our child to be healthy in--we are providing an environment in which he/she can grow and develop mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually. From the moment Juth was conceived, I had little control over how he/she grew and now moves… (this was made real to me when I begged Juth to kick so that James could feel it and nothing happened.)

So do I feel connected to Juth? Absolutely, yes. But ultimately, I have come to more fully realize our child's internal potential for greatness that has already begun that I witnessed through seeing his/her self-sufficiency in my womb. This mentality is much more freeing than how I felt-before- which is that I was the author of all things related to Juth.

#2: The power of visuals

As many people know, the work that I do with CCBR is often considered to be controversial because of our constant use of imagery, both of fetal development and abortion. We have often been accused of making women feel guilty about their abortions and have been encouraged to use slogans instead of pictures as though there is no greater merit to using the latter.

As someone who has been using CCBR’s methods for a few years, I first became convicted of their effectiveness while doing pro-life activism on campus. But, once again, the overall effectiveness of imagery was clarified for me when I saw photos of our baby up close.

I now more fully understand why ultrasound technicians are less likely to show abortion-minded women ultrasound imagery before their abortion. There is no way that a woman could in good conscience choose to kill her child after seeing his/her spine, legs, head, eyes, and mouth and after each body part is described to her in detail. There is no way she could justifiably continue to say that her child is just a blob, or a cancerous growth, or simply an extension of herself. Ultrasound imagery shatters the pro-choice perspective of pre-born children into a million pieces.

I have always known what babies in the womb look like and I am able to articulate parts of their in-utero development. But after seeing pictures close up of my own child and having his/her body parts described to me, I can say with full confidence that there are no words that could have fully done justice to what I saw. How do you describe to someone the delicacy of a pre-born child’s beautiful spine? Or the way in which he/she spins around during an ultrasound, or curls up in the corner? There are no accurate words, only pictures.

In the same way that I have more deeply come to know the intrinsic and indescribable beauty of pre-born children, I have also become more deeply horrified and disturbed by abortion, and abortion imagery. Fully understanding how beautiful pre-born children are must walk hand in hand with understanding how horrific abortion is. The reason I can appreciate the beauty of my child is because I accept and believe Juth to be a valuable human being, and it was amplified after seeing him or her. For this reason, I find abortion to be horrific. Because our culture does not affirm the humanity of pre-born children in the womb, it can justify abortion. How does one accurately describe the bloody, liquidation of a human child in the womb? There are no words, only pictures.

Have you ever seen a beautiful painting destroyed? Doesn’t it hurt to look at it, especially if you know it’s former beauty? That is what seeing ultrasound imagery is like next to abortion imagery. The latter hurts to look at because we are in awe of the former’s beauty and capabilities. We cannot convince our culture of the horrors of abortion if they do not see it and feel pain as a result. They feel pain because they know intrinsically that that humanity is beautiful (starting in the womb), and they can’t stand to see something destroy it.

By showing our culture the destruction of humanity in the womb while affirming the dignity and beauty of pre-born human beings, we clarify for them what it means to be valued, and discarded. We will continue to shatter their ideologies: We will EndtheKilling.

Allison Redford, the Wildrose Party, and the Freedom to "Choose"

jvanmaren — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:58:08 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

So abortion was in the news again—this time, it appears to be an issue in the Alberta provincial election, with the Progressive “Conservatives” desperately combating an increasing Wildrose Party surge.

I find it interesting that whenever left-of-centre parties begin to lose, abortion seems to be their go-to issue. Usually the abortion crowd only debates the idea that abortion is debatable, while insisting that they are most certainly not going to debate, and that everyone knows that abortion is great so the debate we're not having is a moot point anyway. But the minute a group that appears somewhat conservative makes gains, they begin to eye everyone around them very suspiciously. Is the mythical “hidden agenda” in play here? Perhaps we should remind everyone that we don't debate again. That's it, I'm blogging.

Now, obviously the pro-life position is quite clear. Pro-life advocates are very open about their agenda: We want to get rid of abortion completely due to the fact that it is a grotesque human rights violation. I'm not sure what all the Wildrose Party candidates think about abortion. Party leader Danielle Smith is a libertarian, and rightfully noted that abortion is a federal issue. Even if she wanted to ban abortion in Alberta, which she doesn't, she couldn't. It is less clear whether or not the Wildrose Party would hold a referendum allowing Albertans to decide whether or not to pay for abortion. It appears that there is at least the possibility—and here the abortion crowd has good cause for fear, since statistics indicate that the majority of Albertans would support defunding abortion.

Of course, this is a pro-choice activist's worst nightmare. If it turns out that the polls are accurate and Albertans are “pro-choice” about paying for a medically unnecessary and ethically dubious procedure, it will be very difficult for them to justify forcing people to pay for it. A writer over at the estimable rabble.ca even ended an analysis of the situation by stating that the Wildrose Party is clearly an “arrogant conservative political party...that treats voters with contempt.” Yeah, who do they think they are, asking us what we want to pay for? The gall of those people, asking for our input on things.

While I work in the educational arm of the pro-life movement and not the political, thus having limited involvement in “Defund Abortion” campaigns about the country, I do always find that the defunding debate shows the abortion crowd's true colours. While they love to howl about democracy, and freedom, and how anti-choice and 77 % masculine pro-lifers are, when push comes to shove and it becomes apparent that not everyone shares their ideas, they advocate loudly for a pro-abortion oligarchy that ensures the under-evolved farmer from the next town over will definitely have to pay for their abortions. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, abortion advocates claim to want to give a hearing to other views, and then are shocked and offended to find out that there are other views.

It will be interesting to see how the situation plays out. Between Premier Allison Redford voicing her view that doctors should be forced to perform abortions because conscience rights are apparently “frightening” and the abortion crowd loudly demanding an explanation for a Wildrose staffer suggesting that Albertans might want a say in things, the “pro-choicers” are looking increasingly “anti-choice.” The incomplete sentence 'I have the freedom to choose' is apparently only satisfactory when completed with 'to kill my pre-born baby.'

The tides of public opinion will turn against abortion as it is exposed. And then Canadians will realize that the moniker “pro-choice” is a laughable deceit in more ways than one.

Stephen Harper and Canada's Real Hidden Agenda

jvanmaren — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:01:18 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

One of last week's big political news stories was Stephen Harper's first budget as the leader of a majority government. This was the budget that would finally signal to all of us conservatives that the “hidden agenda” we had been dramatically warned about, and that we were secretly hopeful actually existed, was going to be unfurled with the pinache and defiance that only a prime minister in charge of a Strong Stable National Majority Government could muster. And guess what?

The Libs and the lefties really were lying.

I can't say I'm surprised at all. As a social conservative who is increasingly realizing that there is very little left to conserve but a whole lot to fight for, I took Harper at his word when he said multiple times that he wasn't going to touch the abortion issue with a ten foot pole, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that fiscal conservatism isn't his first priority either. And yes, I'll admit up front that I was one of those “Stockwell Day loyalists” that Marci Macdonald so sneeringly wrote about. I was only twelve during the 2000 election, but I still went to the nearest Stockwell Day rally, yelled my face off, and cut all the newspaper clippings chronicling his rise to carefully glue in a notebook.

When Stockwell Day was defeated and the leadership wrested from him and given to the ambitious Stephen Harper, many of us Canadian conservatives were disappointed but cautiously optimistic. Maybe Stock lost because he sounded too much like us, and Canada wasn't ready for that. Maybe Harper just needed to piece together that grand coalition he was working on, and then, when his majority government was finally in the bag...maybe Marci Macdonald's “Armageddon Factor” dystopia could become our so-con utopia.

Social conservatives even rallied around Harper, complaining while they did. (This is how American conservatives voting for John McCain must have felt.) I'll admit it—I wrote with annoyance about Harper's unwillingness to touch the abortion issue, even while attending one of his election rallies in 2008 and openly celebrating at his Calgary victory party last year. The cynic in me retreated briefly as I cheered with the rest during his victory speech, and I lined up with the rest to shake his hand in congratulations.

But here we are. Harper has his majority, and in spite of Stephen Woodworth's encouraging attempts to begin a political dialogue on abortion, we can be assured that there is going to be no government sanctioned attempt at legislation.

But to put it bluntly, that's our problem, not his.

That may sound a bit harsh. But think about it: We had over ten years while Jean Chretien was prime minister, and a mercifully short two year Paul Martin stint to convince the Canadian public that the time was right to start legislating abortion out of existence. Public policy only changes when public opinion does, and politicians only respond to a groundswell that demands change while ensuring their re-election. Politicians aren't willing to commit career suicide over socially conservative issues. And it's our job to make sure they don't have to.

While a succession of laughable and ineffective Liberal leaders warned impotently of a Harper hidden agenda, all the while the real hidden agenda lies on the left. For example, during the most recent election the Liberals tried to make an issue out of Heritage Minister James Moore writing a pro-life op-ed in university. I and a number of my friends decided to open a discussion by posting videos of the abortion procedure on various Liberal Facebook pages, asking politely whether or not the politicians screechily condemning Moore were willing to defend the procedure or indeed, even start addressing it in an accurate way without the seductive mask of “women's rights” or other such titles obscuring the reality. Some poor Liberal staffer must have spent hours hunting down and deleting pro-life comments and links—and finally, the Liberal Party removed the press release condemning James Moore. This, instead of honestly discussing what days before they had professed to be outraged about.

Abortion in Canada is a “hidden agenda” by its very nature, as it depends on obscurity and ambiguity for survival. If every Canadian knew the gritty details of what abortion was and what it actually did to a pre-born child, I have no doubt that the majority would eagerly get on board with the idea of dispensing with the barbaric practice entirely.

And until we expose the “hidden agenda” of abortion-promoting politicians, we can count on it that Stephen Harper will have no “hidden agenda” of demoting abortion from its sacred cow status in Canadian society.

We have work to do. Let's push forward and make sure that when the time comes and we have a prime minister willing to go to war, he will look over his shoulder to find an army of Canadians standing behind him.

What Can The Pro-Life Movement Learn From Andrew Breitbart?

jvanmaren — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:38:57 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

I first heard of Andrew Breitbart in February of 2010, while I was attending the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC with a like-minded friend from Simon Fraser University. While perusing our conference schedules to decide which speeches and lectures to attend, we spotted Andrew Breitbart’s name. As two fresh faced university students, we both asked the same question: Who is Andrew Breitbart?

We soon found out. In the conference hall of the Marriott Hotel, Andrew Breitbart pounded the podium and declared war on the traditional media. He revelled in the recent ACORN sting, in which he had helped renegade investigative journalists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe take down a corrupt pro-Obama organizing group. He read random bits of articles from his phone, and announced to the crowd that the Breitbart websites were going to circumvent the media and give conservatives a voice like they had never had.

That weekend, Breitbart seemed to be everywhere. He was two tables over at breakfast, talking intensely to some lucky student journalist. He was in the hall, facing down Max Blumenthal, a reporter that had made the mistake of calling him a racist. Breitbart had a message to bring, and he was making sure that everyone he ran into heard it: We don’t need the media. We can get our message out without them. The evidence? He was doing it.

This is a message that brings hope to us in the pro-life movement. Only days before I heard Breitbart speak in DC, I had been in Florida, engaging in my very first real pro-life activism at the Genocide Awareness Project with the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) and their American counterparts. One of the first things I learned about the strategy that these groups adhered to was that there was always an implicit understanding that the media would ignore the reality of abortion--unless they were forced to cover it.

When I joined CCBR in January of 2011, and subsequently began to work in the area of communications, I soon realized that an online presence that was able to attract sufficient attention to either offset the traditional media or force them to cover it as well was essential. And so, I picked up Andrew Breitbart’s book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World.

This book will not be for everyone. At a few points it is a tad crude--although if taken in context, the remarks are quite forgivable. However, for those who desire to gain an understanding of how the media works, and how the media can be circumvented or forced to address issues they would prefer to ignore, it is magnificent.

Breitbart’s book isn’t merely a step-by-step plan. He takes the reader through the history of how the censorship-minded took over the media, how he realized it, and how he realized how to effectively combat it. His “Big” websites now attract millions of readers, because Breitbart realized something essential: You have to understand your opponents to effectively combat them. The best pro-life examples of the strategies he espouses are Lila Rose’s investigative stings against Planned Parenthood, and the impressive success of the pro-family news agency LifeSiteNews.

The pro-life movement is the first social reform movement facing open hostility from the mainstream media. Exposing what abortion does to pre-born North Americans is essential to winning the fight against this hidden injustice. As Andrew Breitbart points out, on the Internet we have a level playing field. His book Righteous Indignation should become a must-read for pro-lifers seeking to highlight the injustice of the pre-born in the face of widespread censorship and apathy.

ETK Podcast 9 - Exposing Horrific News

jshaw — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:04:23 +0000

This week Stephanie and Jonathon discuss Charles Adler's coverage of the Tori Stafford trial. Amidst complaints, Adler shared Tori's story on air with care and compassion; he understood the necessity of sharing Tori's story and why it is necessary and important that we share the victims story.

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_9_-_exposing_horrific_news.mp3	26.55 MB

Edith Cavell: The Nurse Who Gave It All

jvanmaren — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:20:25 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

“I can’t stop while there are lives to be saved.”

This statement has been uttered from the lips of countless heroes throughout history, heroes who realized that their fellow human beings had inherent dignity, and that this dignity translated into a corresponding responsibility to reach out to their neighbour whenever circumstances allowed it. Sometimes, the situation demanded that people rise above the circumstances. And sometimes, they did.

Edith Cavell was one such hero. She was born on December 4, 1865, in Swardeston, England to an Anglican pastor, Reverend Frederick Cavell. Her family was always rather poor, but in spite of this her parents taught Edith that there were always those who were less fortunate. The Cavell parents taught their children that it was their Christian duty to reach out to those people.

Edith Cavell knew from her youth that she wanted her life to mean something to other people. She reportedly wrote to a cousin that “Some day, somehow, I am going to do something useful. I don’t know what it will be. I only know that it will be something for people. They are, most of them, so helpless, so hurt, and so unhappy.”

Edith took the lessons of her upbringing and decided to apply it to the profession of nursing. She became a nurse when she was only twenty years old, and was subsequently appointed the matron of the Berkendael Medical Institute in Brussels, Belgium in 1907. Edith, like trailblazing nurses of the past such as Florence Nightingale, worked hard to improve the standards in hospitals and modernize the profession of nursing to insure that the quality of care provided for patients was of maximum benefit. She started her own medical journal, and her expertise was soon in demand from other hospitals and educational institutions alike.

When World War I broke out across Europe in 1914, nurses with Cavell’s skills were in high demand. She joined the Red Cross, and her hospital, the Berkendael Medical Institute, was soon converted into a military hospital where the shattered and maimed soldiers of all nationalities were brought for treatment. Cavell worked diligently to save as many as she could—but soon her Brussels hospital was part of German occupied territory.

Edith Cavell now had a dilemma. She had never discriminated against any wounded soldier, Allied or German. She had always treated human life equally, and had certainly not considered herself a martyr or a hero. In her mind, she was simply following her duty as a nurse and as a Christian whose mandate it was to care for her neighbor. She had even instructed her nurses to tend to all wounded men, regardless of what nationality they were. However, the Germans had posted notices stating that any Allied soldiers who did not give themselves up would be shot. And these Allied soldiers, often wounded and starving, were coming to Edith’s hospital for assistance.

The first two soldiers were sent to Edith from a convent where they had been hiding. She did not turn them away. Neither did she turn away the almost two hundred more soldiers who came to her hospital while fleeing the Germans and attempting to escape to the neutral Netherlands. Instead, she hid them, tended their wounds, and fed them. Eventually, she even went as far as helping them procure money and false documents. Soldiers making it back to England told glowing stories of her courage.

However, the German military soon discovered her actions. She was arrested, and confessed to having hid Allied soldiers. She was sentenced to death. From her jail cell, she wrote to her nurses: “My dear sisters, it is a very sad moment for me now that I write to you to bid you farewell. When brighter days come, our work will resume its growth, and all its power for doing good.” To her friend Grace Jemmet, she wrote, “My dear girl, how shall I write to you this last day? Nothing matters when one comes to the last hour but a clear conscience.”

On October 12, 1915, she was led out of her cell to the shooting range. She was permitted to say a prayer, and then she was blindfolded, and shot to death by a firing squad. To the end, she had not a single regret for the actions that had led her to that moment.

Edith Cavell was willing to give her all to stand up for the principles she had been taught as a child: That no matter how difficult circumstances are, there are always those who suffer more. And it is the duty of each and every one of us to alleviate the suffering of those who are less privileged. As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote of her, “her patriotism was not the sole motivating factor in her actions. Her aim was to help people whose lives were in immediate danger. Edith Cavell’s duty was to humanity, and her legacy is its triumph.”

History tells us of heroes like Edith Cavell so that we, too, might look at humanity and ask ourselves what we can do for others. How we answer that question will define our legacy.

Pro-Choice Philosophy: Live and Let Die

jshaw — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:04:08 +0000

The newest addition to our poster series: Pro-Choice Philosophy: Live and Let Die.

An Update From Our Campus Outreach Director

jvanmaren — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:11:45 +0000

by Alanna Gomez

The month of March saw heavy debate on Canadian university campuses about abortion. In total, CCBR participated in seven debates in B.C, Alberta and Ontario, along with a handful of other presentations on campuses. Unfortunately, several debates didn’t happen, or in one case almost didn’t happen, because of a lack of a candidate willing to defend the pro-choice worldview.

This speaks loudly to the intellectual credibility of the pro-choice position. If you are right, there should be no hesitation in your attitude when it comes to defending what you believe. Logically, abortion advocates should be eager to make their case as to why abortion is a woman’s right that should be protected, and show why we pro-lifers are wrong. Even if they don’t think there is anything to debate, if we are going to keep bringing it up, why not debate us so you can keep showing why we are wrong?

After all, abortion advocates are speaking out about how Canadian campuses are becoming “hotbeds for anti-choice activities.” Synergy, a pro-choice student network, posted a blog calling pro-choice students to action on their campuses, instead of just reacting to the activities of pro-life students on campus. Now, exactly what kind of activities does the author cite?

“Most often, the tactics of anti-choice students involve 'pro-life' campus clubs trotting out presentations or displays by the Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, an anti-choice advocacy organization whose primary goal is to “make abortion unthinkable.””

One of these displays is the Genocide Awareness Project. On March 8^thand 9^th the pro-life club at the University of British Columbia, Lifeline, hosted this display on their campus. Here are three stories from the three of the students who participated:

“There was one girl, who after asking many of the common questions people ask us and discussing the situations with me, left saying ‘I've always considered myself pro-choice, but I'm glad I stopped to talk.’”

“I talked to a student who was not quite for abortion but said that for him a body without a brain cannot be accepted as a person. When he wanted to leave I took the little ten-week baby figure out of my pocket to give it to him as a stone in his shoe which would make him think about our conversation. He took it and was very surprised what an 11-12 weeks old baby looks like. This made him stay and we continued with our conversation. During this time he kept holding the little figure in his hands. After he left to get lunch he came back and talked very energetically to the protesters about how they were offensive and unreasonable and how prudential we were reacting. I was kind of proud when I saw him defending us.”

“I spoke with a girl in first year science…who said that she had heard people discuss abortion before, but had never really made up her mind about it. I asked her what she thought of our display, and her exact words were: ‘I think I finally made up my mind, how could I be for abortion, when this is what it looks like?’”

There is a reason abortion advocates frequently cite our projects as being some of the most effective “anti-choice” activities on university campuses. GAP, along with “Choice” Chain, frequently changes students minds about abortion and allows for fruitful dialogue to take place on campus, between students and their peers. If these projects weren’t having an impact, there would be no reason for our opponents to get so upset about them.

The Synergy group makes several good points about the need to be active instead of reactive. However, they are just looking at things from the opposite side of the issue than our pro-life students, who are being trained to do just that- be active in exposing the truth on campus, not just reactive to whatever the abortion advocates happen to be doing. Our Canadian pro-life students have been successful in presenting the abortion debate to thousands of students in the past month alone.

Finally, there is one thing I do wish the Synergy blogger was also right about.

“Like it or not, the anti-choice lobby is a well-funded machine backed by right-wing bigwigs.”

To all the right-wing bigwigs out there (actually, to anyone who wants to see abortion become unthinkable), we would welcome your support to continue helping students do these effective projects on campus!

Crash Course in Pro-Life Activism!

jvanmaren — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:16:35 +0000

Greetings Fellow Pro-Lifer!

This August the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform will be hosting its third annual “Crash Course in Pro-Life Activism” from August 13 to 17—and you are invited to apply to attend! Not only will this be an opportunity to further learn how to reach and transform the culture, to be energized by spending time with other world-changers, but you will gain hands-on experience in how to do effective activism on the streets of Calgary!

The Crash Course is a very condensed form of CCBR’s summer internship program. It encompasses two aspects: study and activism. Three times that week, Crash Course attendees will join CCBR’s interns on the streets of Calgary, exposing the truth of abortion through “Choice” Chain and engaging passersby in discussion. The training sessions that week will cover topics including achieving social reform, pro-life apologetics, organizational and financial management, and fundraising tips.

Last year’s Crash Course had attendees from groups including Campaign Life Coalition, Lethbridge Pro-Life, and Alberta Pro-Life. Here’s what one past attendee said about how the Crash Course impacted her:

“Before attending, I was really having difficulty with my pro-life work. In fact, I felt like I was done. I was completely burnt out. I decided not to go to the Crash Course; I decided to quit my ministry. I had given notice to only one of my board members who encouraged me to still attend and discern where I was supposed to go. When I arrived in Calgary I was given a bookmark that said, ‘Don’t quit.’

“The Crash Course week was super awesome. When we watched one of the movies on social reform I was struck by the example of the people in history and realized no matter what pain we have to go through, we have to persevere for the cause. The whole week re-energized me and re-fueled me; it made me think I can still do this—that I have to do this, that I’m called to do this. I returned to my office convicted not to quit. I stayed on and got a lot of things set up—we got so many new monthly donors thanks to the fundraising strategies CCBR taught me, and we were able to hire another staffer because of what I learned at the Crash Course. Going was definitely worth it!”

Important details:

*Application deadline: Friday, June 1, 2012

*Crash Course start date: Monday, August 13, 2012

*Crash Course end date: Friday, August 17, 2012

*Each day runs from 9am to 5pm

*Optional activity: Team social on Saturday, August 18

*Location: Calgary, Alberta

*Cost: $75. You are responsible for taking care of your own travel, accommodation, and meals. CCBR may be able to assist with connecting to housing opportunities, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the attendee. We will provide light snacks each morning as well as coffee and tea.

Please note that while we thank all applicants for their interest, only those selected for the Crash Course will be contacted. Spots are limited. Accepted candidates will be contacted by Friday, June 8.

Please email agomez@unmaskingchoice.ca for our application form, which should be returned by Friday, June 1.

On behalf of CCBR’s team of 18, we hope to meet you soon,

Alanna Gomez, CCBR

Irena Sendlerowa: The Social Worker Who Spared Children From Murder

sgray — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:53:10 +0000

by Stephanie Gray

She was arrested at the age of 33 and sentenced to death. Posters proclaiming her execution were circulated around her city. She read them with her own eyes.

Irena Sendlerowa is celebrated as a hero today, but during WWII she was a threat to the Nazis. As an able-bodied Gentile, she wasn’t an immediate target of the Nazis but what she did made her one: She used her position of power and influence as a social worker to sneak children out of the Warsaw Ghetto and hide them with families. Recognizing the importance of family and personal identity, after changing the children’s names, she wrote their real names on paper and placed them in a jar that she buried for safety until the war was over.

Tragically, however, most of the parents of the 2,500 children Irena and her friends saved were murdered.

Irena couldn’t save everyone, but the fact that she couldn’t save all didn’t negate her responsibility to save some. And so, her actions reflect the words of Helen Keller who said, “I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.”

With courage, Irena sacrificed much to save vulnerable children. In fact, she was eventually caught by the Nazis, arrested, tortured, and sentenced to death.

It has been said that what goes around, comes around. After Irena spent years rescuing people, when she herself was sentenced to death, her activist colleagues rescued her—they bribed her executioner. Irena was thus secretly released and ultimately saw the poster proclaiming her murder that never was.

For most of her life, Irena’s story was largely unknown to the world. It wasn’t until the late 1990s when a group of high school students in Kansas saw a passing reference to a woman who saved children from the Holocaust and began to research further into this woman called “Irena Sendler” (her shortened last name).

In 2007, Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but she lost—to Al Gore. In a seeming injustice, that a person who educated about man-made climate change would win over someone who successfully saved lives from a man-made human extermination system, it’s important to remember that Irena didn’t do what she did for reward. Rather, she did it because it was right, because she loved her neighbors, and because she did unto others what she would have had done unto herself.

The classroom motto for the students who made Irena’s story famous was “He who changes one person, changes the world entire.”

Irena lived that sentiment by doing great good. Will we?

When "Health Care" Kills

jvanmaren — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:01:16 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

Two days ago, I attended a debate on the legal status of abortion between CCBR’s executive director Stephanie Gray and Dr. Molly Ladd-Taylor, a history professor at Toronto’s York University. Since history is my field of interest as well, I was looking forward to seeing how Dr. Ladd-Taylor would present her case. I was quite disappointed; the entire debate, she emphasized two things: First, the “slippery slope” of “constructing fetal rights” in regards to the legal ramifications of banning abortion, and second, that the state had no right to deny women “access to health care.”

Obviously I find the idea of a “slippery slope” argument in regards to “constructing fetal rights” to be incredibly ironic considering the actual reality, which I’ve written on multiple times: The “pro-choice” movement fiercely denies the existence of a Culture of Death slippery slope while leaping to defend any new category of killings when residing on the bottom of said slope. But clearly, we need to define our terms in this battle of rhetoric. So the prominent question here is this: What is health care?

Now, I have no desire to endlessly discuss Barack Obama’s healthcare plan here. Obviously, I am opposed to any plan that would facilitate the ending of human life through abortion or abortifacients, outside of any argument regarding the pros and cons of socialized medicine. But in order to judge this ever recurring “health care” argument, let’s take a look at the actual definition: “The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.”

First, just to make an obvious observation in regards to the much-discussed HHS Mandate (which I oppose because it endangers religious freedoms, imposes the state’s religious view on citizens, and facilitates the ending of human life through abortifacients), contraception is not health care. Pregnancy is not a disease; it is a fundamentally natural human process. This holds true whether you are an atheist or a religious person. Thus, the prevention of pregnancy is by very definition a “choice.” And there are more than enough organizations that are thrilled to satisfy our decadent culture’s need for constant recreational sex without forcing those who are morally opposed to that to become collaborators in the hedonistic spiral.

Second, what about the constant claim that abortion is “health care”? Most obviously, I would cite the fact that the mental and physical ramifications of abortion are staggeringly negative. I’m confused when people howl hysterically at this statement, as it seems eminently intuitive to me considering the science behind this. Interrupting a natural process is going to have consequences, both psychological and physical. (You know, the whole “action, reaction thing.”) There are mountains of evidence to support this, and they’re not religious. It’s enormously deceitful to claim that abortion in any way contributes to “the preservation of mental and physical wellbeing” of someone, regardless of one’s life circumstances.

In fact, the pro-abortion movement even has the gall to call abortions “necessary.” You can’t have it both ways—if you want to make the hugely dishonest claim that abortion is a “necessary” procedure, as if having one’s offspring suctioned out of her uterus is somehow analogous to cancer treatment, you cannot simultaneously assert that abortion on demand is not a big deal, and that no discussion is necessary.

It really shows the true colors of the abortion movement—they first claim that abortion isn’t a big deal at all, and that we should just get over our hang-ups about prenatal infanticide. Fast forward a bit down the road, and abortion is suddenly a very big deal, and the “right” to off one’s offspring is a fundamental human right that should be paid for by the taxpayers. Those who promulgate the Culture of Death will never be satisfied with “choice,” and we would do well to realize that indifference in this regard is, to paraphrase Churchill, feeding a hungry crocodile while hoping it will eat you last.

When we hear the destruction of innocent life being called “health care,” it should be a rallying cry for all pro-lifers. We cannot let the opposition define the terms of the debate. We cannot allow them to refer to the slaughter of our generation being called “necessary.” We are all responsible for this prenatal genocide, and if we are not careful, we will be forced into an increased collaboration by the state. The lies have gone on long enough. And we will defend with everything we have the “narrow-minded” view that all human beings have the right to live their lives. Once the mask of pretty words is pulled away to expose the grotesque reality, we will EndtheKilling.

ETK Podcast 8 - The Great Abortion Debate

jshaw — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:19:12 +0000

This week Jonathon and Stephanie discuss her debate with Dr. Molly Ladd-Taylor at York University on March 20th, 2012. Listen in as they deconstruct the debate!

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_8_-_the_great_abortion_debate.mp3	38.01 MB