Thursday, April 21, 2016

Conscience rights are violated with Bill C-14

"... it is necessary to emphatically reaffirm that conscientious refusal to kill people is a manifestation of essential humanity that deserves the protection of law... 
...Bill C-14 does not provide that protection. The government is deliberately ignoring the ongoing coercion of health care providers to compel participation in euthanasia, and Bill C-14 will allow coercion to continue..." 
...the federal government can prevent such coercion because it has exclusive jurisdiction in criminal law. It can enact a law to prevent powerful groups, professions, or state institutions from forcing people to be parties to homicide and suicide. It can prevent those in power from punishing health care providers who refuse to arrange for their patients to be killed or helped commit suicide...
...It is true that the bill’s preamble states that the government will “respect the personal convictions of health care providers.” But – aside from the fact that preambles have no legal effect – what is that worth? 
...the Special Joint Committee claimed that respect for freedom of conscience is exemplified by their recommendation that, “at a minimum,” objecting physicians should be forced to find colleagues willing to kill their patients. Behind this Orwellian perversion lies the Committee’s more astonishing premise: that the state can legitimately order people to become parties to homicide and suicide, and punish them if they refuse. 
...Whatever else it might decide about euthanasia and assisted suicide, parliament should make it the law of the land that no one and no institution in Canada can be forced to be a party to homicide or suicide, and no one will be punished or disadvantaged for refusing to do so.”

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Assisted suicide - its chilling reality

Good letter in today's National Post:
Re: Euthanasia Makes Us All Complicit, Andrew Coyne, April 19.In his book, Other People’s Lives: Reflections on Medicine, Ethics and Euthanasia, Richard Fenigsen wrote that, “In Holland, the country much praised for its practice of voluntary euthanasia, the lives of 400 disabled newborns are terminated every year by denial of medical assistance, dehydration/starvation and lethal injections. The reports of government-ordered studies revealed that lethal injections are given to 1,000 gravely ill persons who had never asked for death, but have a “low quality of life” or “no prospect of improvement;” some were killed “because the families could not take it anymore” or even because their beds were needed. Thus, along with the voluntary euthanasia that is going on, we witness the extermination of persons who embarrass their families, are undesirable for society, or arbitrarily judged unfit by doctors.
In a society, the ones who are in most need of protection are infants, children, the aged, the weak, the infirm and the marginalized. We are slowly turning into a society that, under guise of constitutional guarantees of freedom, autonomy and self-determination, is riding the slippery slope of exterminating the very people who need our protection the most. 
Cynthia Robles, Mississauga, Ont.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Quote by St. Thomas More

"Men desire authority for its own sake that they may bear a rule, command and control over men, and live uncommanded and uncontrolled themselves."

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Old dog, new tricks, etc. etc.

Update April 19 - Someone contacted me yesterday and told me that when they tried to access the link to "Fern Hill"'s blog they got the following message:

"Warning: Trouble ahead

Whoa!

Are you sure you want to go there?


Why are you seeing this?

When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors."

Imagine that.
__________________________________________________________________________

Anonymous blogger "Fern Hill" thinks that because she is "civil" in asking a question, she deserves an answer. She doesn't. Not until she decides to stop ridiculing pro-life people, which apparently, she is incapable of doing.


All one needs to do is read her recent blog on sex-selection abortion

Or any entry for that matter.

Most of the sex-selection entry is--as expected--devoted to making fun and ridiculing pro-life people.

You just can't have a "civil" conversation with a rude boorish person like "Fern Hill". So why even try?

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Canada: Sex selection abortions are performed


But for some Indian-born women in Canada, that ratio is as high as 409 to 100:
"A new study finds that Indian-born women in Canada with two or more children are giving birth to more baby boys than expected. And researchers suggest abortions related to sex selection may be a major reason. 
The study says Canadian-born women in Ontario gave birth to about 105 boys for every 100 girls between 1993 and 2012, consistent with the average in most of the world. 
But women who immigrated from India who already had two children gave birth to 138 boys for every 100 girls. If they already had three children, they give birth to 166 males for every 100 females. 
That ratio rises to 326 boys per 100 girls for Indian-born mothers with two daughters who had an abortion preceding her third birth. 
It was 409 boys for every 100 girls if the mother had more than one abortion."
You'd think the feminists would be up in arms over the sex selection abortion of their own. But I'm pretty sure we won't hear anything from them. The pro-abortions never meet an abortion they wouldn't condone.