From the US? Considering an abortion? Go to, a database of abortion malpractice information in the USA.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cady Stanton



Thursday, 31 May 2012

True Feminism

"The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term 'female physician' should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women ..."
- Diary entry of Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, first woman graduate from an American medical college

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impeller  her to the crime!"
- Susan B. Anthony, American civil rights leader, in The Revolution, the women's rights journal

(via Feminists for Life)

And from Ruth Lobo Shaw, a beautiful speech about unborn human rights and what it means to be a pro-life feminist. Check out CCBR for more information on the New Abortion Caravan.

Contrast these pro-life feminists with what our society typically thinks a feminist is - pro-choice:

"This spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America also told The Huffington Post that the organization condemns seeking abortions on the basis of gender, but its policy is to provide “high quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into” its health centers. That means that no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois)."
- from the Huffington Post

 Who here is truly fighting for the rights of women and girls?

[aside] Sorry for not blogging very often - these are a busy few weeks! I'll be back at it soon, promise :)

Monday, 28 May 2012

Sunday, 27 May 2012

Quote of the Week: "Abortions exist best in the dark"

Sarah Silverman's controversial abortion "joke".

"'Newt Gingrich's campaign is so dead, Mitt Romney wants to baptize it and Rick Santorum wants to put it in a jar and show it to his kids.' That's the joke that Jimmy Kimmel was going to tell at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. He didn't, but only because an ABC News reporter told him that it could 'cause the room to turn against him'. [...] It's a ghastly goulish joke in which I see no possibility of humor. None. But that's why I wish he would've told it. [...] Abortions exist best in the dark. Abortionists prefer silence. I say let's bring the light. Let's have the conversation. If people knew what went on in clinics they'd turn away in disgust. And I think that most people would be shocked at the flippant manner in which many deal with issues like life. [...] The longer we allow the abortion debate in this country to be spoken in bumper stickers and safe cliches, we lose. [...] I want them to tell their abortion jokes. Why? Because then people will see how unfunny it all is."
-Matthew Archbold

And from the comments (emphasis my own):

"One thing I'll never understand is the oft-repeated statement by pro-'choice' types, 'I would never have an abortion myself, but I believe it should be an option for others.' That makes no sense to me. If it's not a good enough solution for YOU - how is it good enough for someone else?"

Read more at The National Catholic Register:

Saturday, 26 May 2012

Friday, 25 May 2012

And another post on maternal mortality ...

From the MCCL Blog, "Evidence presented at World Health Assembly that health care, not abortion, will solve maternal mortality" (emphasis my own):

"The new analysis, "Women's Health & Abortion," explains that maternal mortality fell dramatically in developed nations as a result of mid-20th century improvements in health care—well before the widespread legalization of abortion. Today Ireland and Poland, which prohibit most abortions, boast among the world's lowest rates of maternal death. [...] Chile's success contrasts with the recent record of the United States, which permits abortion on demand and has seen its maternal mortality rate climb upward over the last two decades. The U.S. maternal mortality ratio (the number of deaths per 100,000 live births) increased from 10.3 in 1999 to 23.2 in 2009. Over the same period, Chile's ratio decreased from 23.6 to 16.9. A report issued this month by the World Health Organization and other U.N. agencies estimates that maternal deaths worldwide dropped 47 percent from 1990 to 2010. The report offers further proof that women’s lives can be saved through improved health conditions."

Like I said, healthcare conditions, not the legality of abortion, seem to be the deciding factor in reducing maternal mortality. That's why US abortion deaths were dropping long before Roe v. Wade, and that's why Chile saw a reduction in maternal mortality rates even though abortion was re-criminalized. Never mind that wasting resources lobbying for abortion "rights", when you could be spending money and time helping to bring healthcare systems out of the dark ages, is just bad policy. Why would you advocate for abortion access when the healthcare systems are in disarray? Abortions are not simple procedures and I could see more deaths occurring simply because women are having abortions from untrained professionals, with tools that aren't sterilized, and equipment that isn't up to date. And what about all the other people who are dying because of poor access to healthcare? Their lives clearly won't be saved by abortion legality. Pro-choicers: if you are so worried about women dying, deal with the things that are directly causing their deaths.

(btw the last bit was my opinion, would love to see some articles / stats / papers that talk about this so please if you have any send them my way! Merci!)

One last thought, which I got from Jennie from LiveAction, is that if women are dying from illegal abortions, it is the pro-choicers who are killing them since pro-lifers (obviously) don't do abortions. Interesting point, and it really hits home to me the real tragedy of abortion, which is that in a society that focuses so much on "pro-choice", the only option that seems to be discussed at length is abortion - women are very often not given or encouraged to consider other choices. It is one of the reasons PP performs so many abortions vs. adoption referrals. It really is a tragedy, and it is a sign, like Feminists for Life says, that we as a society are failing women.

Okay, now I'm officially done. Sorry for the rambling, I'm in a reflective mood today! :)

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Pro-choice vs. pro-life on illegal abortions




Abortion deaths in America were falling long before legalization.
From Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy (an abortion textbook):
"Induced abortion is an impressively safe procedure, particularly but not exclusively where it is legal. (224)"
Also see this study.

UPDATE: 2012/05/26
Got this from the RealChoice blog. It is an estimate, but its interesting how many pre-legalization abortions seemed to have been performed by trained doctors. I wonder if anyone has some more solid numbers on this?

You can see the original page this infographic was posted on, which includes references (the second source looks particularly interesting, going to try to find a copy!)

Video of the Week: 'It's Too Heavy', An Oscar-Worthy Toddler Tantrum

A really tired toddler just can't put her bowl away because it is WAYYY too heavy for her to lift. Super cute! :D

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Feticide according to the Royal College of Gynecology

Want to know what abortion truly does? Just read the guidelines for feticide from the Royal College of Gynecology ...

Thanks to Pro Life Pagans, who posted the full quote on Facebook - go read it!

Emphasis my own, italics and links are my own additions:

"Feticide should be performed before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation to ensure that there is no risk of a live birth. [...] Inducing fetal death before medical abortion may have beneficial emotional, ethical, and legal consequences [i.e.: because it is such an emotional/ethical dilemma to have the person you were going to kill minutes before, be born alive and subject to protection by the state.]  [...] in cases where the fetal abnormality is not lethal or the abortion is not for fetal abnormality and is being undertaken after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation, failure to perform feticide could result in a live birth and survival, which contradicts the intention of the abortion [look at that! Abortions do cause death!!]. Regarding fetal pain and awareness, the RCOG has published guidance and concluded that 'In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.' [note that this is a conservative estimate that is far from settled. There is ample evidence that fetuses before this age respond to painful stimuli. From an interview with Sir Albert Lilley, the father of fetology: "I can only say that the [8 - 10+ week old] fetus responds violently to stimuli that you and I would find painful."] Very few abortions ... are undertaken at late gestations. Only 9% [in 2004, this corresponds to 16687 abortions in England and Wales] of abortions occur after 13 weeks and only 1.5% [corresponding to 2761 abortions - let that sink in. Over 2000 people in the England and Wales alone are being killed once they are viable!] occur after 20 weeks of gestation. [...] When the method of abortion chosen ... is surgical (D&E), the nature of the procedure ensures that there is no risk of a live birth [scroll down to D&E to see why]. [...] When medical abortion [involving drugs like Mifepristone or RU-486] is chosen, special steps are required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion. [...] The RCOG recommends intracardiac potassium chloride (KCl) 2-3 ml strong (15%) injection onto a cardiac ventricle [i.e.: injecting poison into the fetus' heart]. A repeat injection may be required ... and fetal demise should be confirmed by ultrasound scan ... . Fetal demise may also be induced by intra-amniotic or intrathoracic injection of digoxin (up to 1 mg) and by umbilical venous or intracardiac injection of 1% lidocaine (up to 30 ml); however, neither procedure consistently induces fetal demise [this is just another way of stopping the fetus' heart]. A dose of digoxin 1 mg given either intra-amniotically or intrafetally will cause fetal death in 87% of cases; the latter method is much more rapid. A dose of digoxin 1.5 mg given intra-amniotically caused death within 20 hours (in most cases there was still fetal cardiac activity at 4 hours) [not only are we killing the unborn, we're drawing out their deaths so they last as long as 20 hours - how cruel can the human race get?]. In a large retrospective review, Molaei et al. (2008) concluded taht the overall failure rate with digoxin was 7% [remember this number when pro-choicers tell you that its impossible for babies to be born alive after an abortion], although there were no failures with an intrafetal dose of 1 mg. Importantly, in this review there were no adverse effects at any of the doses used [for the mother]. Intracardiac injection of either KCl or intrathoracic injection of digoxin requires considerably more skill than intra-amniotic injection of digoxin. While the latter may be slightly less effective in inducing fetal demise, its use may be an option for services that lack personnel with sufficient skill in administering intracardiac injections."

Pro-lifers turn historical abortion campaign on its head

In case anyone missed it ...

The teaser trailer:

And the big reveal:

This is awesome. I was planning on writing about how our pro-life protests aren't inconvenient enough to get the public's attention - looks like I don't have to do that anymore! Seriously hope this gets people angry enough to start talking. You can read more about the New Abortion Caravan at CCBR's website!

Opposing View of the Week: From Naked at UBC: Why the hell did that woman take her clothes off on campus?!

You can read the article here.

I've been wanting to comment on this for a really long time. Basically, the Genocide Awareness Project, which compares abortion with other atrocities such as the Holocaust, was holding a demonstration at the University of British Columbia, and rather than protest the old-fashioned way, Justine (the young woman who wrote the blog post) decided to take off all of her clothes. Back in March, an acquaintance of mine, who goes to UBC, posted Justine's blog on her Facebook, so I clicked on the link because it said "naked" (I know, so mature!!). When I saw what the nakedness was about, my immediate thought was "wow! the pro-life world is going to be all over this, if this is the best protest pro-choicers can come up with". Alas, the pro-life blogosphere largely ignored Justine (perhaps because her protest was just so juvenile?). Her blog, however, is very articulate, and so I will attempt to address her points here.

Justine protesting against GAP

(Aside: you can listen to CCBR's thoughts on her display here).

The theme:
"I hope [this post] will prompt people to think about free speech, our right to protest against things we find abhorrent, and what role the university plays in restricting or allowing protest."

(note: these are all worthy things to consider)

What happened:
"So I took off all my clothes and sat in front of the display until it was taken down..."

Her bias:
"As someone who supports women’s universal access to free, safe abortions, I fundamentally disagree with the anti-abortionists’ message. That said, I respect their right to hold their opinion as long as they don’t infringe on anyone’s right to access a free, safe abortion."

I always find statements like this interesting. She respects the pro-lifers right to their opinion, but only as long as their opinion does not "infringe on anyone's right to access a free, safe abortion". Since the pro-life goal is, broadly speaking, to have abortion re-criminalized, infringing access to abortion is exactly what pro-lifers are trying to do. Perhaps not specifically with the GAP display, but the comparison of abortion with other legal atrocities like the Holocaust, does imply that abortion should be made illegal. Clearly, she does not truly respect the pro-lifers "right to hold their opinion", since their opinion drives them to try accomplish exactly what she doesn't want them to do.

(Quick explanation for my American readers: abortion is paid for by our taxes in Canada, which is why Justine says "free, safe abortion").  

Now moving onto the meat of the post.
First, I would like to point out that Justine completely ignores the main message of the GAP display, which is that, similar to how other victims of genocide have been stripped of their rights, pre-born babies are also considered non-persons by those who support abortion. For example,

Her main points, as I see them, are addressed below.

"They are saying that a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy is akin to Nazis, terrorists, Klu Klux Klan members and the Santebal [...] The implication is [also] that anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose is also participating in mass, organized murder ..."

She at least gets part of the message. The implication that pro-choicers themselves are actively supporting and participating in the systematic destruction of real human persons is uncomfortable to say the least. But that is what is happening. You won't find a single post-abortive, ex-pro-choicer who denies that. A recent article by Abby Johnson, who herself had two abortions and was a Planned Parenthood employee, is a wonderful example of the growth, love, and healing that the pro-life community strives to extend to those Justine claims we condemn as evil. Additionally, many women are tricked, coerced, or pressured into choosing abortion, at which point they also become victims.

"'[My] first thought was: "I wish I were Jewish, or Lakota, or Cambodian so I could tell those people how deeply disrespectful and ignorant their posters are.' Imagine that! My first thought was that I, as a woman, did not have a legitimate grievance against images which equate my right to choose with enthusiastic membership of the Nazi party."

I find this quite refreshing actually. Normally, I am confronted with pro-choice activists who claim that lack of access to abortion confers onto them the title of Most Oppressed People Ever. It is nice to see a pro-choicer realize that the lack of abortion access is NOT the same thing as having your life violently taken from you. Now if only she could extend these same thoughts to the unborn, whose lives are also being stolen from them in the most atrocious of ways. 

"Many of the people I spoke to said they wished they could knock over the signs or unplug the PA system [... they] also said they were afraid of getting [in]  trouble and remained where they were. [...] I was deeply troubled by the fact that people were so afraid of … what? Getting kicked out of university? Being stripped of their scholarships? There seemed to be a feeling that stepping outside of the zone reserved for protest would have disastrous results, and no one seemed willing to test the rules."

This is most telling. She began her blog post by talking about nice things like "free speech", "right to protest", and "respecting opinions"; and yet implies (if not fully admits) that she wishes that she and her fellow counter-protesters could shut down and suppress the pro-lifer's message without repercussion. I am glad no one actually knocked down signs or unplugged the PA, but I am deeply troubled that the reason this did not happen is because they were afraid of the consequences. What about respectful, peaceful dialog? What about encouraging discussions between opposing views? What about, to use Justine's words, the right to free speech and the "right to protest against things we find abhorrent?" No matter what side of the debate you are on, if you feel you have to silence your opponents through vandalism and interference, then (in my opinion) you immediately sacrifice your credibility, otherwise why wouldn't you be in favor of open, respectful dialog? Additionally, freedom of speech and expression is supposed to be  a fundamental freedom in Canada, and I would hope that most Canadians want this freedom to be respected.

A GAP display

What Justine wishes she could have said to those running GAP:

" I am an exceptionally privileged person."

I agree. For one thing, you are alive - unlike the victims of abortion. And you live somewhere where you can exercise life-or-death decisions over someone else and not get arrested for doing so. 

 "My freedom to exercise control over my own body without shame or fear is a freedom I want all people to have because only when all people are free from oppression and shame will we live in a universally peaceful and egalitarian society."

That's interesting, considering the unborn are not even considered persons under Canadian law, and those who are aborted will never be able to exercise control over their own bodies. Does that sound equal to you, dear reader? Let me fix her statement: "My freedom to exercise control over my own body [by killing my children should they reside in my womb] without shame or fear is a freedom I want all [born] people to have because only when all people are free from oppression and shame [but are not free from being dismembered, disemboweled, starved, burned, and/or poisoned if they happen to be less than approximately than 9 months old] will we live in a universally peaceful and egalitarian society [excepting those who are pre-born, who do not have any rights whatsoever]".  

 "[As] I take my freedom for granted I make it more difficult for someone else to achieve freedom."

Someone, perhaps, like a full term baby that is torn apart limb from limb? And before anyone claims that we don't need laws against late-term abortions in Canada because they just don't happen, they do.

 "Freedom ... is beautiful."

Apparently only when it does not extend to everyone in our human family.

 "My body is where I exercise and appreciate my freedom on a daily basis, and I reject outright the assertion that by supporting the right to free, safe abortions, I am turning it into a tool of mass murder."

Except by supporting abortion on demand, for any reason, Justine is supporting the abortion (i.e.: killing) of the unborn. She might not think that killing unborn babies is a bad thing, but she should be honest with herself: she is supporting the mass destruction of unborn babies' lives.

(Aside: I am wondering why she did not simply walk up to the GAP protesters and speak her mind - the whole point of GAP, as quoted from their website, is to "engage passersby[s] in discussion[s] about abortion", so the opportunity was definitely there. I've also listened of recordings of different GAP demonstrations, and the people running GAP spend much of their time listening to and addressing the public's responses to their display. Odd that she seems to think freedom of speech is such a great thing, but didn't even bother to exercise it by directly confronting the GAP activists).

"It didn’t take long for campus security to arrive and ask me to 'cover up.' I asked why, and was told that I was 'indecent.' I found this particularly ironic, seeing as I was sitting in front of a six-foot-high image of naked bodies piled in a mass grave"

There is a huge difference between choosing to strip down in public vs. being murdered and then stripped naked by the people who killed you. I'm ashamed for her for making this statement.

Justine's description of how the UBC administration dealt with her protest loosely reminds me of the difficulties pro-life students have been having in exercising their own rights to protest and demonstrate:

"And this is the kicker – the university has translated the campus security guard’s allegation that I 'disrobed in the plaza…' into an allegation that I disrupted the GAP display. In other words, UBC is laying charges on behalf of a 'victim' who never even made a complaint. I expected that there would be repercussions to my actions that day, but I never suspected the university would come to the defence of a highly controversial anti-abortion group WHICH DIDN’T EVEN ASK TO BE DEFENDED" 

I am totally in support of Justine on this. UBC did not handle the issue properly at all. By all means, take issue with the fact that she was sitting outside naked on school grounds, but she was clearly very careful to not disrupt GAP in any significant way.

"The university can expel you for plagiarism, but they can’t kick you out for expressing your opinion – in fact, that’s what we’re supposed to be learning how to do. Do not be afraid to speak up when you see something that offends your humanity. Don’t let the threat of campus security or the police stop you from speaking truth to power, or the fear of breaking with social norms stop you from standing up for what you believe in."

I agree with everything here, with the proviso that "speaking up" does not involve suppressing the counter-message (like Justine implied she wanted to do earlier in her post). I'd also like to point out that in terms of having your message silenced, Justine had a much easier time than quite a few anti-abortion protesters. She wasn't arrested, and she wasn't forced to leave - even though she did not comply with the security officer and claimed not to be a UBC student. Here are just a few examples of worse situations off of the top of my head:

My point? Freedom of expression has to go both ways, and the issues in Canada (both at Canadian Universities and in the public) with regards to our freedom of speech are pretty serious, especially if you are pro-life. When a peaceful, old grandmother spends years in jail for having an opinion in the wrong location, then there is a problem with free speech that goes beyond anything that happened to Justine. I am extremely glad that the injustice of UBC's actions against Justine were brought to light, but I would like to see worse transgressions equally condemned and dealt with in a similarly quick and fair manner. It took about a week for UBC to drop the allegations against Justine - it took over a year for Carleton University to drop trespassing charges against Carleton Lifeline members, who were arrested for trespassing onto University grounds ... and three of them were members of that university.

Carelton student arrested

In conclusion there are three things that Justine should acknowledge before discussing this topic again:

1. That in supporting abortion rights, she does support the destruction of human lives. She might not find those lives valuable or worthy of protection, but she supports their destruction nonetheless, and so statements like "I reject outright the assertion that by supporting the right to free, safe abortions, I am turning it into a tool of mass murder" demonstrate how much she has missed the point.

2. Freedom of speech should extend to abortion activists and anti-abortion activists in equal measure. Justine and her fellow protesters are not brave or noble for expressing a desire to sabotage the GAP display, and being afraid to do so does not mean that they are being oppressed in some way.

3. The attacks on pro-life demonstrators for expressing their opinions have been far more serious than those that were leveled against a girl who stripped naked and then lied to a security officer. It is awesome that the university dropped the allegations against her, but people everywhere should be equally prepared to defend pro-lifers in similar situations, especially if they claim to value freedom of speech and expression.

Sunday, 20 May 2012

Quote of the Week: "I went into the ladies' and cried"

An Irish student describes her experience with pro-abortion rhetoric in the classroom:

"To know about foetal stem cell 'treatments' for Parkinson's patients i[s] one thing; to have a glowingly positive video about it foisted upon one at 9am on a Monday by a previously respected Neuroscience lecturer is quite another. [...] I look around, wondering at the perfectly calm, at least outwardly, reactions of my classmates. [...] We were then treated to 50 mins of the belittlement of the Pro-Life movement, the erroneous claim that foetal stem-cell research is a completely separate issue to the Abortion debate [and] the dissection of [a] 6-8 week old foetus. To make matters worse ... my grandmother died of Parkinson's [and] my aunt currently suffers from the disease. [...] I went into the ladies' and cried. I'm still shaking."
-Ailish Hathcock

Read more at Keep Ireland Pro-life

Song of the Week: Chant of the Templars - Da Pacem Domine

I have recently discovered a love for chants. So far this one is my favourite; it's just so mysterious - I can totally imagine the Knights Templar marching off to battle while chanting this.

The chorus:
"Da pacem, Domine, in diebus nostris
Quia non est alius
Qui pugnet pro nobis
Nisi tu Deus noster." 
loosely translates to:
"Give peace, O Lord, in our days
Because no other 
Fights for us 
Except for you, our God."

Chen Guangcheng in the US


Saturday, 19 May 2012

Seeing Hope (6): Grayson James Walker and the value of a life

Heather Walking was preparing for the arrival of her third child when, sixteen weeks into the pregnancy, her baby was diagnosed with Anecephaly, a fatal birth defect. In spite of the news, she carried her baby, named Grayson, to term, and was determined to keep Grayson's birth and short life joyful for her and her family. Read their story here.

"You know, my son lived almost eight hours, and he's already done in eight hours what I could never do in a hundred lifetimes, and that's awesome." - Patrick Walker (Grayson's father)

When Heather posted photos of Grayson onto her Facebook page, the pictures were deleted and Heather was banned from Facebook - but she has gotten a tonne of support and is determined to stop Grayson's life from being censored! Just an all-around heartwarming story; I bawled my eyes out reading about Grayson and the love he was surrounded with in his short life.

Friday, 18 May 2012

Who decides who dies?

Hassan Rasouli with daughter, Mojgan, and wife, Parichehr Salasel
The Rasouli Case is creating a storm in Canada. Hassan Rasouli fell into a coma after brain-surgery complications in October 2010. One month later, the medical team caring for him determined that he was in a persistent vegetative state, and told his family that the best course of action would be to remove his ventilator and feeding tube. His family disagreed. Rather than referring to the Consent and Capacity Board, as is usually the procedure, the medical team took the Rasouli family to court. The case has worked its way all way up to the Supreme Court, with the doctors arguing that it should be their decision alone on whether or not to continue treatment.

In the meantime, Hassan Rasouli has shown signs of consciousness, vindicating the Rasouli family. However, many people still believe that Hassan Rasouli should be starved to death - in spite of his family's objection, in spite of his marked improvement, and in spite of his religious beliefs. That this is an issue is a frightening reflection on Canadian views of palliative care and patient autonomy, and every Canadian should be paying attention to the outcome of this case.

Go to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who has intervener status on this case, for a great analysis.
Read a recent article from the Toronto Sun.

Solidarity in the pro-choice vs. pro-life communities




Thursday, 17 May 2012

China's War on Women: Quotes from the Culture of Death

I was browsing through the Women's Rights Without Frontiers website, when I came across the video below, where activist Reggie Littlejohn discusses the effect forced abortions and sterilizations have had on Chinese women.

What I wanted to highlight were the comments on this video; most of the recent comments are supportive of these practices. Reading them, it just made me realize the strength of the aptly-called "culture of death" in our society. That the same people who cry "Respect A Woman's Right to Choose" can come out in favor of brutally forcing women to abort wanted children just boggles the mind. I wrote yesterday about how depressing the abortion debate can be, and today it is just more depressing than ever. I never thought pro-lifers would have to argue against forced abortions.

Emphasis in the comments below is my own:

"Somebody needs to control the rabid infestation that is Chinamen and women. Its either they die this way or grow up in poverty and die of starvation. Leaving this horny population unchecked will create far more problems than having a women be punished for breaking the law. Its tough, but you should of realized that before you went and got pregnant for the nth time."

"First you have to understand the overpopulation problem in China"

"load of crap"

"[...] The reality is for a long time China has [had] trouble maintaining it's enormous population. Unfortunately [people] don't understand the situation in China, and how bad overpopulation is over there. If China revoked it's one child policy and allow the [population] to grow out of control, there is no way this can be sustained. As a Chinese national I don't like this policy either. But unfortunately there are no other options available."
"... millions of people will starve to death. Just look at how bad it is over in India. Their population has exploded and have grew to rival China. Poverty grips the country more than any other place with millions starving to death every year. But at least they don't have any forced abortions. I wonder if this woman would still be talking about being pro life and condemning all the forced abortions if millions of people in China start starving because of overpopulation problems?"

"Blah, blah, blah. The fact is these women are not following the LAW.
Follow the law and they would not be forced to abort. 7,000,000,000 is too many people on this Planet. China is overpopulated - there are not enough resources, nor is there an adequate distribution system to adequately supply food, medicine, etc to the millions of poor people. Why should a child be born and then forced to starve? That is absolute cruelty. Better to abort than to starve ... it to death."
"... Forced violence? The fetus has no clue, dude.
You would rather the child be born and then starve to death, or die from disease? That is not compassionate or intelligent. That makes absolutely no sense.
Death from starvation. Yep, that's the answer (end sarcasm).
Overpopulation is a reality. The grace of god is NOT."
"... China is doing the right thing in limiting population growth. [...] Go out [and] MULTIPLY (fuck like rats) until there are no resources left to sustain us? What a JERK. You are blinded by Bible darkness and superstition. Grow up..."

"I don't agree how they do it but I do agree that there needs to be a limit of how many children a family can have."
"I think that there should be a max of 2 children per family everywhere. One day this earth will be over populated. There needs to be a limit or I fear it will be the end of our species.

"don't want a one child policy? don't want forced abortions? stop fucking breeding."

"[They] need to follow the rules. There is a real need to limit the birth rate in these areas. You are a bleeding-heart. If they followed the rules, there would be no need to force them to practice self-control and use protection. You are a stupid woman. You need to see the bigger picture."
"SO true. OVERPOPULATION is no joke. When there are tough financial times, humans will kill to survive. We need to limit the birth rate world wide."

"[They] are NOT following the rules. If kids are born and there is overcrowding, shortages of resources including food, water, medical care and the children become [malnourished], sick and die; who is responsible? They know the rules and they selfishly ignore them.
The one-child rule was adopted for a reason. Stop being a religious moron."
"But what happens when we reach critical mass?
What happens when there is a serious problem that damages or disrupts the food chain?
You do know there are starving children around the world, because of food shortages, don't you.
Food resources are NOT plentiful. That's one reason why China has adopted the one-child policy. You need to get your head out of the sand and face reality. There aren't enough jobs now for people everywhere. This is one we are seeing protests and chaos."

"I see the problem with forced abortions, which can be a real psychic torture to some women, but someone mind telling me what's the problem with forced sterilization?
After you get 1 or 2 children forced sterilization can only be right..."

You can read a good analysis on the acceptance of forced abortion from LifeNews: "Pro-Abortion Groups Still Unfazed by Forced Abortions in China"

Relevant quote (emphasis my own):

"Investigations of population control policies reveal an invisible hand of Western elitesGreat Britain recently gave $268 million to India even after being warned that the program commits mass coerced sterilizations.  UNFPA, whose grants paid for training and equipment like computers to calculate birth quotas, praised China’s one-child policy.  Gill Greer, director of IPPF, which includes the China Family Planning Association as a member, said adopting the population 'policy is very conducive to China’s development.'"

Read another great analysis from The National Post: "Chen Guangcheng, China's One Child Policy, and Abortion's Slippery Slope"

Quote of the Week: "He is a hero in the eyes of women"

Chai Ling's Testimony Before the House of Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights:

Chai LIng, the founder of All Girls Allowed,
nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize
following her leadership role in the Tiananmen
Square student movement in 1989.

"[I]t grieves me to hear Chen dismissively referred to as 'a single guy'. He is one man; it is true. But he is a symbol - a hero - in the eyes of women, children, and the poor in China. Why? Because he defended them when it was costly, and when no one else would. [...] Often missing from last week's news stories was the cause that defined Chen Guangcheng's work, and led to his imprisonment. [...] The One-Child Policy formally sanctions violence against women. Chen knew this. Chinese authorities jailed him in 2006 after he filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of women who had undergone forced abortions and sterilizations because of the Policy. [...] If you are concerned that such a course is not realistic or pragmatic enough, I humbly ask you to do what is right. It was not economically pragmatic for William Wilberforce to seek an end to the British slave trade. It was not expedient for Martin Luther King to speak out against injustice and then land in a Birmingham jail. Ronald Reagan was not acting with calculated diplomacy when he said, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' I can think of many instances in history where men and women sacrificed pragmatism for the sake of higher principle. Somehow they invariably ended up on the right side of history. I hope that you will stand on the right side of history in confronting the injustices of our time."

Read more at All Girl's Allowed

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Opposing View of the Week: "Reopen the abortion debate?" from This Magazine

This is an article by Kyle Dupont on re-opening the abortion debate (because, of course, people seem to think this debate has been closed these past two decades).

His opinion:

"If this country were ever to allow restrictions to be implemented on a women's choice over her own body, we would be taking one giant leap backwards."

Right. Because being the only country in the world with absolutely no laws restricting abortion is just so progressive. It would seem, however, that the rest of the world does not agree.

In spite of this, he does think that the abortion debate should see the light of day (emphasis mine):

"We live in a democratic society where issues are openly discussed and voted on by the individuals we have elected into power. [...] It would be wrong and dangerous not to reopen the debate in a democratic nation."

Kudos to Mr. Dupont!

There are a few things about this article, however, that I want to specifically address. Mr. Dupont makes the point that with major advances in medical science and maternal care, the face of the abortion debate has changed. He asks:

"What happens when we reach the point when we can find out with certainty that a child will grow up to have Parkinson, ALS, or Alzheimer's? Is it humane to let the fetus survive only to live a life of unspeakable pain and suffering?"

First of all, I cannot even believe anyone is asking this question. If it is not humane to "allow" (because we are, apparently, the arbitrators of life and death) someone to survive if they will suffer later, we should just kill everyone because, guess what, at some point we are all going to suffer! And before you jump in and start crying about how I would think differently if I knew someone who has a horrible disease like Alzheimer's - I do. My Godfather. And he may be suffering now, but he isn't yet suffering unspeakably and, in fact, he is still able to smile, laugh, converse, and participate in life. And he has had an amazing life so far, with 2 beautiful children, one adorable grandchild, a loving family, and a distinguished career in business. I just don't understand how the fact that he is now ill somehow erases the entirety of the rest of his life, which was (and often still is) filled with incredible joy.
The real question is: how can we deny our fellow human beings the chance at life, love, happiness, and self-determination based on the knowledge that at some point in their life they will suffer? How is that fair? How does that make sense? Why aren't we instead asking: "how can we cure these diseases, mitigate the suffering of those afflicted in the meantime, and show our fellow human beings that we are here with them and for them"? When did our focus shift from helping and curing those who are suffering, to eliminating those who are suffering instead? Why is the elimination of those who are ill seen as a "cure" by so many people? By that logic, we should also kill anyone living in abject poverty ... but of course, we do not! Why? Because killing those who are suffering does not solve the problem! Killing does not stop poverty, nor does it cure Parkinson's, ALS, or Alzheimer's. And, in fact, many people who are suffering are still happy to be alive. Since that is the case, how can we be so arrogant to think that we can decide for others whether or not their lives are worth living?

Next he asks:

"Female feticide is a regular occurrence in China and India where boys are the preferred sex - and is now occurring in North America. Should parents be allowed to choose the sex of their child?" 

Quite simply, no. It is discrimination based on gender, and after the women's suffrage movement, I would have thought most people agree with the idea that discrimination based on gender is not alright. According to UN statistics, there are about 100 million girls missing due to gender selection. Girls are being targeting for the simple reason that boys are considered an asset, while they are seen as a liability. How exactly is this okay?

"I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Nobody does."

Well I do. Groups like "All Girls Allowed" do. Activists like Chen Guangcheng and Reggie Littlejohn do. Doctors, nurses, scientists, and medical researchers, who all strive tirelessly to cure and treat those with illnesses like Alzheimer's, do. Individuals who live with debilitating diseases do. And I thank Mr. Dupont for supporting the "re-opening" of the abortion debate, so that their voices can finally be heard by all Canadians.


Secular Pro-life and Bad Catholic have both recently blogged about something that has been bothering me for awhile. How can we, as pro-lifers, go about our daily lives knowing that millions of our fellow human beings are being brutally killed every single day? Not only that, but in Canada, my tax dollars are paying for these atrocities. And yet I still pay taxes, and I happily take advantage of everything else my tax dollars pay for.

How can we pick just one day to protest and, after a few hours, go home feeling satisfied since more people came than last year?

Why aren't there more people who are willing to passionately
witness against abortion? Why am I not more like her?

Sometimes I just feel that we are remarkably useless. Even though I know that every voice who rises up, every person who peacefully protests, every individual who speaks up online or in person, makes a difference, I still feel as if we (or at least, I) have no real conviction. All I know is that I really do understand how atrocities in the past were allowed to happen. I understand how people could have supported chattel slavery, or the holocaust, or infanticide. I understand how slave owners could have brought themselves to brutally abuse "their" slaves, I understand how "Dr." Mengele could have experimented on children, and I understand how the Greeks and Romans could have left their newborn babies to die in the wilderness. I understand because I see it happening today with abortion, forced abortion and gendercide, human trafficking, poverty, and the millions of other tragedies that happen every single day. People justify them, or ignore them, or dehumanize the victims, or convince themselves that it can never happen to them, and then get on with their lives. I am guilty of this too, and I don't see how I could function normally if I wasn't. How can one live day-to-day constantly thinking about everything that is wrong with the world?

Just some food for thought.

From Secular Pro-Life: Is it really so hypothetical?

[in response to a hypothetical situation where an organization chucks two-year-old's into a furnace, and pro-lifers do nothing but say how awful it is]

"People have to live with these kinds of contradictions every day, actually. It's not like people three hundred years ago had no idea how bad the slave trade was. It's not like Americans in the nineteenth century didn't know how awful the Trail of Tears was. It's not like Germans under the Nazi regime really thought it was okay to lock up millions of Jews in concentration camps. These things really happened, not because people were so different from you or me. They happened because normal people like you and me aren't so wonderful as we think we are. It's remarkably easy to justify evil."

From Bad Catholic: Why I Don't Care

"If the March for Life was a march of human beings who saw other human beings as normalizing and legalizing the murder of infants, there would be cars burning in the street. As it turns out, there is no protest in the present age. There is only representation. There is no foolish human action. There is only the support of abstractions. Infants are being killed - we follow the lines the police allow us to follow."

Monday, 14 May 2012

Video of the Week: Demoncracy, Tyranny, and Liberty

How democracy can lead to a less free society.

"A democratic voting system is a way to discover what most people think, but that is not the same thing as discovering what's right."

Song of the Week: White Owl by Josh Garrels

art + music = mind blown.

Sunday, 13 May 2012

Thoughts on a Mother's Day Dinner Conversation

First of all, Happy Mother's Day! 

Today I had a lovely Mother's Day dinner at my parents' house. While there, of course conversations turned towards politics (as they are wont to do when my family gathers) and someone mentioned how politics in the US focuses too much on religious issues like abortion and gay marriage, and that these issues distract from what is truly important, like the economy or bombing the living daylights out of Iraq. I stayed silent throughout the conversation, as I prefer to listen to what other people think rather than bulldoze through and push my beliefs on people (besides, there was no way I was going to start a heated debate on Mother's day). Anyway, there were four things that struck me about the conversation.

1. The sympathy for Obama. I just don't understand how anyone can have sympathy or support a president who signed into law a bill which codifies indefinite detention without trial (see commentary from Human Rights Watch here), or encourages US citizens to report those who disagree with the president's policies. Talk about having rose-coloured glasses! Even my ridiculously pro-abortion, far-left, NDP-worshiping friends no longer support him. Of course, these are the friends who actually follow politics and don't get all their news from the MSM.

2. The claim that abortion/gay marriage issues are unimportant. If both were completely outlawed overnight, I guarantee these same people would be up in arms over the human rights violations. So basically, these issues should only be considered unimportant if you are against them, but they are of course very important human rights issues if you support them. Everyone take note - if you ever come across someone who disagrees with you, just claim their views don't matter in the grand scheme of things!

3. The claim that abortion and gay marriage are in anyway comparable, and are "religious" issues. One allows two men or two women to have their relationship recognized by the state, the other allows doctors to dismember, disembowel, starve, burn, and/or poison a member of our human species. Where exactly does religion come in (beyond the fact that the Catholic church has an opinion on both issues), and how exactly are these things the same? This is why I believe the pro-life community as a whole has to forget about the gay marriage debate, and focus only on life issues like abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. And we really need to focus on secular arguments, similar to the work of CCBR or SecularProlife. When our fellow humans are being legally killed, things like gay marriage or belief in Christianity just don't matter. Let gay unions be recognized by the state. Let people be atheists. Focus on saving lives. Or at the very least, separate these aspects of your activism. I firmly believe that once people realize that they can be against abortion, but pro-gay rights, or pro-secular things in general, our community will explode in numbers.

4. The irony of being against war, but being in favour of abortions. Both are violent, and both end innocent lives in brutal ways. But one takes place in a doctor's office, so it's okay. 

Anyway, those are my thoughts for today :) I've been very busy lately, but I will update my post on the Canadian March for Life ASAP, promise!! Love you all <3 

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

March for Life 2012!!!!

Tomorrow is March for Life 2012 in Ottawa!!!! I won't be going this year since I could not get the time off work/school :'( But I hope as many of you as possible are able to make it out! And if you're able to, make homemade signs - the personal touches really do pack a powerful punch. If, like me, you aren't able to attend, keep updated on the news and be sure to comment favorably on MSM news sources!

I'll be keeping a list of articles I come across which cover our March :)
CBC: Anti-abortion activists tell Harper debate is on
          Anti-abortion protestors demand Tories revisit issue
          Anti-abortion rally
          Anti-abortion protestors march on legislature 
CTV: Pro-life advocates rally on Parliament Hill
The Globe and Mail: Anti-abortionists march on Hill - and vent frustration with Harper
The National Post: Thousands of anti-abortion protestors shut down streets near Parliament Hill
The Toronto Star: Canada's pro-life movement gets slick, youthful rebranding
The Toronto Sun: Anti-abortionists call Harper 'cowardly' for not reopening debate
The Ottawa Citizen: A woman's right to health
                                 Anti-abortion movement rolling out new tactics
The Edmonton Journal: Anti-abortion movement moves to a new generation
Guelph Mercury: March by anti-abortion protestors shuts down Ottawa streets
London Free Press: Open the abortion debate
The Star Phoenix: Youth out in force at Ottawa anti-abortion rally Anti-abortion movement rolling out new tactics
Metro: Mayor defends city's pro-life proclamation ahead of National March for Life
Xtra!: March for Life takes over the Capital   
CNews: Thousands March for Life against abortion
Digital Journal: Thousands expected on Parliament Hill for 15th National March for Life
580 CFRA: March for Life Today
                   Pro-life protest in downtown Ottawa
680 News: Pro-life activists take aim at Harper over abortion issue
News 1130: Pro-life activists take aim at Harper
                    Pro-life advocates protest on Parliament Hill

National March for Life blog

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Song of the Week: "If You Want Me" by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova

I'm currently obsessed with Marketa. Her songs are magnificent. Her and Glen are a very good mix. Enjoy! :)

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

Opposing View of the Week: "Woodworth's Misogyny" from The Abortion Monologues

Opposing Views of the Week is a chance for you to learn what the other side thinks (if you're pro-life) or for you to learn what the other side thinks of you (if you're pro-choice). I will be featuring a blog post by a pro-abortion advocate every week, with a(n) (attempted) rebuttal. 
You can read the full blog post here, called "Woodworth's Misogyny" written by Jane Cawthorne. Before I start to address her points, I just wanted to point out that the very first label she identified with "Woodworth's Misogyny" was #nodebate. I thought that was interesting.

Now onto the blog post:

"To Stephen Woodworth and your cabal of fetus fetishists."

No, we do not have a fetus fetish. Glad we got that cleared up. :)

"Why do you hate women?"

We don't hate women. I'm a women. Most of the leaders in the pro-life movement are women. If you really don't believe me, look at the work that Feminists for Life is doing in the USA, advocating for pregnant women in the workplace and at school. Also, I looked through your "List of Anti-Choice MP's", and it turns out that that 19 of them are women. Huh.

A woman hatin' woman!

"Why are you and your anachronistic patriarchal cabal trying to force your opinions up my vagina?"

Who said anything about your vagina?

 "Why are you forcing Parliament to waste time on a question that has been settled for decades? Give it up, man. It's over." 

You really don't understand the position of pro-lifers if you think that we will ever give up. Until every human being, at ever stage of its life, is respected and protected by society and by law, we will not give up. Considering the 27% of Canadians in 2007 who said they believe that abortion is morally wrong, the 39% of Canadians in 2010 who said that the government should only fund abortions in the event of a medical emergency, and the 15 300 pro-lifers who attended the 2011 March for Life, I think it is quite clear that the debate is not as settled as you would like it to be. Sorry to disappoint.

"Why can't you see the evidence in front of your eyes, and know that denying a woman the right to an abortion only results in driving the procedure underground and bringing harm to women. Are you trying to find ways to harm us? Why do you deny the science and the surveys and the studies and the irrefutable evidence that criminalizing abortion does nothing to reduce its incidence? How can you be so blind to fact?"

Hmm, maybe it's because when abortion advocates speak, their words themselves do not completely support this view! There are many factors that determine whether a particular abortion procedure is safe for women, and illegality is not the foremost one. From the 2009 National Abortion Federation's medical textbook on abortion, Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy (emphasis my own):

"The high risk of death from unsafe abortion in Africa reflects the procedures used and the poor availability, accessibility, and quality of services for management of complications." (19)

"First-trimester aspiration abortion is one of the safest procedures provided for women of reproductive age. Its use in lieu of dilation and sharp curettage has reduced abortion-related morbidity worldwide." (152)

"Where mifepristone is not accessible, various misoprostol-only regimens are being used... its widespread use in countries with restricted abortion laws appears to be associated with reduction in maternal morbidity and mortality." (122)

"Even in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws, increasing use of MVA (manual vacuum aspiration) and medical abortion methods has reduced abortion-related mortality. (135)" 

"Induced abortion is an impressively safe procedure, particularly but not exclusively where it is legal. (224)" 

"Why are potential people, clumps of cells no bigger than a few milimeters, more important to you than actual women?"

Well, considering that Stephen Woodworth is opposed to a law that says that we are not human until we completely exit the birth canal, when we are no longer mere clumps of cells, I find it odd that you would even bring this up. We aren't just talking about humans at their very earliest stages of life (though we pro-lifers care about them too!!). We're also talking about humans that have arms, legs, a heartbeat, and brainwaves. We're also talking about humans that can learn, play, laugh, yawn, and cry. We're also talking about humans that can survive outside of the womb. These humans are not considered human beings under Canadian law and it is completely legal for a doctor to kill them. Never mind the fact that women are very often hurt by abortion (both physically and emotionally), are discriminated against through abortion (even in Canada), and that more than half of all victims of abortion are unborn women. We care about all women. You seem to only care about the ones who are born.

"You don't get to decide what I do with my body. Only I get to decide that."

I totally agree. I only object when women (or men for that matter) decide what to do with someone else's body. 

"But this is just women we're talking about here, so you don't care. You feel we can't be trusted."

We are not the ones who think that aborting a baby girl just because she is a girl is totally fine. Believing that every person, no matter the age, deserves life and love and respect is the exact opposite of not caring. We are not the ones who think teenagers should abort even if they don't want to. We are not the ones hiding abortion images from women. We are not the ones who refuse to allow women to see their ultrasounds. Believing that every woman has it in her to be a wonderful mother, and giving her the resources to make that possible, does not mean that we don't think women can be trusted - in fact, it means the exact opposite.

I also have numerous posts detailing the efforts the pro-life movement is making towards helping young mothers and women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies have other options available to them besides abortion. Please read through them, and then tell me again that we don't care about women.

"You know that petition you are sending around, the one that you're putting up in publicly funded schools and having Catholic school children sign, the one that shows a woman's pregnant belly and cuts off her head? [...]You've broken that woman into parts, objectified her, made her pornographic."

Catholic schools promoting Catholic values?? Oh noes!! And maybe the petition focuses on the pregnant woman's belly because that is where the baby is - you know, the baby that doesn't have any human rights and isn't even considered a human under Canadian law? And showing a picture of a pregnant woman's belly is pornographic now? That just takes the cake. I guess My Pregnancy Guide and other pregnancy resources which also show pictures of pregnant bellies objectify women and turn them into objects too then, right?

 "Why are you obsessed with women's bodies?"

First Woodworth has a fetus fetish, and now he's obsessed with women's bodies. Notice that the only one talking about vaginas and pregnant bellies is you. 

 "Why can't you go about your business and leave me alone?"

This isn't about you. Its about her.

"Did someone hurt you when you were little and ruin your sense of eroticism and any possibility you have of enjoying a healthy sexual relationship? Did someone convince you sex was a chore done only to procreate?"

You know, just because pro-lifers know that having sex could create a baby, doesn't mean we have no sense of eroticism. Really, the logical leap from "they think sex can make babies" & "they think babies should have human rights" to "they must not have healthy sexual relationships" & "they must think sex is a chore" is astounding. Many pro-life women have lots of kids. How exactly does it follow that they don't enjoy sex?

"How many more generations will we have to wait until people like you are gone?"

Considering that the pro-life movement is made up of quite a few young people, you will have to wait awhile!

 "I have values, and they are just as strong and important and vital to me as yours are to you. The difference between you and me is I'll never try to shove mine up another woman's vagina, or down another man's throat."

But you will use your values to tear apart a fetus limb from limb, inject poison into its heart, burn it inside and out, suck it out, and basically do anything at all that will kill it. And that's okay. Incidentally, abortions generally shove things up a woman's vagina, so I really think you ought to pick another euphemism.

This is the best quote of the entire blog post:
"I'll never support your efforts to force others to abide by your twisted, erotophobic, anti-sex, misogynist, patriarchal bundle of human-rights affronting crap that your motion represents."

"You are waking a sleeping giant. Women are not things for you to possess and command. You are about to find out, we are warriors."

We are warriors, and we pro-life women will fight until our last breath to make sure that all human beings have rights, including the unborn. And there are many women on our side. And we won't stop until abortion not only becomes illegal, but both unthinkable and unnecessary. Good luck in this battle, because when you're against this, you are definitely going to need it.