Mr. Harper gets a vacation

I won't be blogging during the Month of May.

I wish all my readers a beautiful spring (finally) from up here in the land of snow (now finished), maple syrup (yum), where the moose roam freely (yes I did see one blocks from my house), the beaver chews trees (she can leave some nasty teeth marks especially if you threaten mama's babies), and the Mounties always get their man (well I'm not sure if they do). I hope to be back online in June.

I'd like to leave you with the thoughts below from Dr. Donald De Marco's book Abortion in Perspective, where he argues for the rights of the fetus because of its inherent goodness and value.

The responsibility falls on us "to judge wisely the fate of those who must plead their case in silence".

And Mr. Harper? Don't worry. I'll be back.

"With the right-to-privacy ruling[from Roe Vs. Wade], the human foetus's right to life is judged to be conferred upon him by his mother. By being unwanted by his mother, the human foetus loses all claim to his existence. What could be a clearer case of arbitrary authoritarianism? The human foetus is nothing until the mother sanctions his existence by wanting or needing him. The human foetus is good only because he is wanted; he is not wanted because he is good. The wish of the mother outweighs the substance of the foetus. The foetus has no intrinsic value, goodness, or dignity. The mother, in conferring value upon him through mere approval, becomes a symbol of power rather than love.

Opponents of abortion develop their discussion from a concern for the objective reality of the foetus which disposes them to accept the proper ordering of things and the rightfulness of creation. Anti-abortionists are realists, because they consider the substantial reality of the human foetus to be good and lovable and consequently more valuable than idea, wish, or convenience. They are democrats because they believe ordinary people to be capable of discovering and affirming the foetus's objective reality and therefore of avoiding authoritarian legislation directed against him.

Sacrificing the human foetus for the sake of an ego preference demonstrates a blatant disvaluation of reality, "an exercise in raw power". The human foetus is good because he is a human life struggling by virtue of his own inner dynamism to possess life in a larger measure. By constantly transcending himself in time, in a properly human way, he manifests the common destiny he shares with all men. No man has ever lived who did not once live as a foetus. It is deeply disturbing to think that law now regards the early foetus's right to exist as based no longer on his intrinsic goodness but on someone else's arbitrary decision. Is this not a form of human slavery?

A democratic solution to the abortion issue is possible only if people are enlightened, that is, if they exercise the intellectual vision and moral perspicacity necessary to discover and embrace a world of real values. The authoritarian refusal to revere goodness, and the insistence upon satisfying self prepares for the decay of effective democracy. "It is sad not to see any good in goodness." These words of the Russian author Nikolai Gogol capture the spiritual malaise of modern man. Man has retreated into himself and has demanded the freedom to sever all ties with truths that lie beyond his ego.

When the authoritarian transplants the natural basis for goodness for reality to the ego, he also, by the same stroke, denies the natural basis for his own goodness. If good is only externally and arbitrarily conferred, then the basis for any good, even that of the authoritarian, is undermined. Authoritarianism toward the unborn ultimately invalidates all natural bases upon which human life can be valued as objectively good. At this point no one can enjoy security against arbitrary condemnation. People will live in mutual distrust, ever fearing that the justification of their own existence will suddenly be removed by another as easily as it has been conferred. When democracy yields to authoritarianism, power replaces love. Society can not endure such moral regression.

The human foetus, frail and peaceful, can offer little protest to man's destructive ego. The full burden of wisdom falls upon those who live outside the womb. Theirs is the awesome responsibility to judge wisely the fate of those who must plead their case in silence. The silent plea for life will thunder across man's heart if he only stills his ego to listen to another's truth."

North America is going to Hell in a handbasket

More from Brian Lilley on the Gosnell story. Brian interviews Lila Rose from Live Action.

Defense Attorney Jack McMahon said:
"If we are going to say a baby is born alive because it moves the one time without any other movement, that is ludicrous."

Lila says:
"Gosnell is not an outlier. Gosnell is not alone. There are over a thousand children every year who survive the brutal late term abortions. We have a lot more Gosnells."

Brian notes our own born alive abortions here in Canada.

And President Obama won't even comment on Gosnell. No wonder. He's too busy cozying up to Planned Parenthood:
"No matter how great the challenge, how fierce the opposition, if there's one thing the past few years have shown is that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. As long as we've got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you've also got a president who's right there with you fighting every step of the way."

When you have a president who is so committed to the abortion business, it's not hard to see where things are going.

Of course here in Canada our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper won't even let us debate abortion in (our) Parliament.

The gap between who gets to live, and who we choose to kill, seems to be getting smaller and smaller. With an American President and a Canadian Prime Minister who are anything but role models on the life issue, who knows where it will all end? Will we wake up before it's too late? I hope so.

Globe and Mail - your bias is showing

We all know where the Globe and Mail's bias lies concerning abortion. And it isn't pro-life.

This article: How abortion protests are coming to Toronto's high school steps criticizes CCBR's bloody abortion displays outside Danforth Collegiate and Technical Institute. I expected no less.

Here are a few "choice" sentiments in case anyone didn't catch it:
“There’s nothing we can do; they stand off school property,” said spokeswoman Shari Schwartz-Maltz. “If members of the community take exception to what they’re saying or their tactics, they are absolutely encouraged to phone the police.”

"Some Toronto parents are fuming, not only at the presence of the pro-life group but also because the TDSB hasn’t informed them of the group making the rounds outside secondary schools. “They send us a letter home if some kid has lice. They send us a letter home if there’s been a shooting. Why hasn’t anything been sent home saying ‘Just in case you’re not aware, there is a pro-life group that has been picketing various high schools, and we’ve told kids not to engage’?”

"Others, mainly boys, were infuriated by the presence of a pro-life group. As the discussion heated up, school administrators pull them away."

"Arthur Morris was so angry, he was shaking. “I don’t have a problem with them protesting. Freedom of speech, I’m all for that. But I have a problem with this, these images, right outside of school,” said the 16-year-old. “Don’t force your religion, and it’s largely a religious thing, don’t force your religion onto others.”

(Why do pro-choice people always fall back to religion as a motivation for being pro-life? Notice how they never explain the connection between the two. And who is "forcing" religion on anybody? We aren't even talking about religion.)

“I think it’s ridiculous,” said Hayden McKinnon, 18. He added: “They’re at a high school. They’re showing pictures of dead fetuses right on the corner... I think all women should have a choice.”

(How ironic. The purposes of the pictures is to graphically depict that "choice", Hayden. Don't you get it?)

"Kerry Bowman, a professor of bioethics at the University of Toronto, worries that vulnerable students are being targeted by a group that is not providing information, but rather using manipulative language and advertising techniques to recruit."

(If dead bloody fetuses are not information in the truest sense of the word, then what are they?)

“When you combine the manipulative techniques with a population that is still forming their values and beliefs, I see an ethical red flag going up,” Prof. Bowman said. “You’re really playing to win. It’s not a just a question of informing people about this issue; it’s much more manipulative.”

(How is speaking the truth, manipulative? And ethical red flag? Uh, isn't abortion an ethical issue? One could argue that not showing dead bloody fetuses to someone considering an abortion, would be an ethical red flag, Professor.)

"Ms. Christopoulos said schools have a responsibility, however, to inform the community. Her 16-year-old daughter did not think much of the group showing up at her high school. Ms. Christopoulos was furious that her daughter and her friends were being targeted."

“I think it’s inappropriate. If you want to make a point, then I think you should be approaching people who are in a position to be making those kind of decisions,” she said. “I don’t think my 16-year-old daughter is.”

(Teenagers certainly make the decision to have abortions; therefore they are quite capable of seeing what the abortion "choice" looks like.)

Notice how the Globe didn't interview one person who agrees with showing the signs, and maybe even had their heart changed while viewing those pictures or talking with the CCBR folks. Interesting don't you think?

Pro-life and freedom of speech win

I think an important result of Parliamentary Speaker Andrew Scheer's ruling this week has been the civics lesson learned. It taught us how our Parliamentary system is supposed to work, but hasn't been:
"Andrew Scheer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has made a potentially landmark ruling on MPs’ freedom of speech that could stem the flow of power from the backbench to party hierarchies, in defiance of the wishes his party leader, Stephen Harper...the Speaker brought down his ruling on the breach of privilege issue involving MP Mark Warawa’s right to talk about sex-selective abortion in a members’ statement."

I had never really understood that our MPs ability to freely speak up in the House of Commons, didn't actually exist. I had always thought they were free to speak--until this happened. I learned that it was actually the party whips who were controlling MP's ability to speak. Unlike the Parliamentary system in the UK, where MPs can speak freely, (as long as they stand up and are recognized by the Speaker) our MPs could not.

Our practice had begun when Speaker Jeanne Sauve started asking for lists of MP names from the parties, since she apparently couldn't remember the names of the MPs and their ridings. Seemed to make sense at the time, until the implications of that practice were fully realized with Mark Warawa's Motion.

For instance Maurice Vellacott, an outspoken pro-life advocate only spoke twice, while Quebec MP Jacques Gourde spoke 35 times in the House:
"Mr. Scheer "acknowledged that members who complain they are rarely on their party’s list have a “legitimate concern.” An analysis of members’ statements, for example, suggests that 10% of Conservative backbenchers delivered 28% of the members’ statements in the last year, with Quebec MP Jacques Gourde giving 35 statements (mostly pushing party messages) and Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott delivering just two."

Justin Trudeau's then brought forward his own free speech Motion:
"That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

But it looks like this motion was purely for political reasons. While it seems like his Motion was about free speech, Mr. Trudeau had also stated to a CBC reporter that he was:
"Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right."

This sounds like his motion would exclude any abortion talk. I sent Mr. Trudeau an email asking him to "clarify for me whether or not, you would allow an MP to use their Member Statement (SO31) to speak out against abortion?"

Because, if Mr. Trudeau really believes that abortion is a constitutional right (which of course it isn't), then he must be excluding it from his free speech motion, right? Since he still hasn't replied to me, I can only conclude that abortion would be excluded. He can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

The can't-talk-about-abortion-virus started with Mr. Harper, then spread into Parliament, then into most of the mainstream media, then into our democratic practices, then all the way over into one of the most right wing talk show hosts in this country, Lowell Green. Even Mr. Green won't let listeners discuss abortion on his show. We know the can't-talk-about-abortion-virus must be pretty deadly when Mr. Green--the man who says listeners can speak on any topic--won't allow abortion discussion.

The abortion debate is important yes, but freedom of speech is fundamental to its ultimate success. On this we have scored an important win.

If Mr. Harper hadn't insisted on not letting Mr. Warawa speak, none of this would have happened, and Mr. Harper's iron fist squeeze on MPs ability to speak freely would have been maintained. As it is, we learned a valuable civics lesson by all the attention Mr. Warawa's Motion has inspired and the resulting ruling by the Speaker.

We must thank Mr. Scheer for his principled ruling. And a very special thank you to Mr. Harper for making it all possible.

To the Prime Minister: the flowers are coming

Gotta love that Brad Trost:
“We should send a big bouquet of roses straight over to PMO. If they want to keep this issue quiet, they’ve done anything but.”

Gotta love that PMO:
"The Prime Minister’s Office wouldn’t comment on Trost’s remarks specifically. “That being said, the Prime Minister has always been clear the government will not reopen this debate,” said spokesman Carl Vallee."

The Prime Minister. Has always. Been clear. The Government. Will not. Reopen. This. Debate.

No shaving cream. Sherlock. Tell me something. I didn't know? If you'd only let. Mark's Motion. Be debated. In Parliament. The debate. Would. Be closed. Now. But you didn't. So the debate. Continues. In the media. And everywhere. Even the Liberals. Are debating it. In Parliament. Yesterday. With you. Or without you. Mr. Harper. Even the Globe. Is debating it. Imagine that. Well thank you. Anyway. Mr. Harper. For allowing. The debate. To be open. We couldn't have. Done it. Without you.

The Prime Minister. Has always. Been clear. The Government. Will not. Reopen. This. Debate.

The humanity of the unborn

I just listened to a very moving documentary on CBC radio.

It was about a former Klu Klux member named Charles Marcus Edwards, who together with James Ford Seale, were involved in the abductions and killings of Charles Moore and Henry Dee, two young African Americans in Mississippi in 1964.

The brother of one of the victims, Thomas Moore, along with CBC reporter David Ridgen, had tracked down Edwards. Moore and Edwards had met previously in 2006 when Edwards denied any involvement in the killings. That visit, and Edwards subsequent testifying against his partner Seale, lands Seale in prison where he died in 2011.

In 2011 when Edwards is again visited by Moore and Ridgen, the visit is very different. This time Edwards and Moore speak openly about what happened. This time Edwards apologizes to Moore, and even invites him to his Baptist church on Sunday, where he is a deacon.

The two men sit on a swing with the bees buzzing on a stinking hot Mississippi day and talk about the past.

Rigden tells us he was literally shaking, at what he witnessed. He is deeply moved by the scene unfolding before him. Edwards now knows that what he did those many years ago, was wrong and he says so.

It is difficult not to compare this story to our Canada now, and our own abortion culture.

There was a lot of hatred and unspeakable atrocities against African Americans back in those days. Yet hatred and crimes against them, is mostly a thing of the past. And we all are--and rightly so--aghast if we hear of any crime that involves any kind of racial violence. We can't, and don't, tolerate it anymore.

There are some who aren't happy with the comparison of abortion to the slavery or crimes against African Americans. It doesn't really matter if they are happy or not; the similarities are there.

In both cases, human beings are treated with hatred because of who they are: the colour of their skin; their pre-born status; their presumed property status; their unwantedness. Yet both are human. Both have value. Both are worthy of love and respect. Both are precious.

It will change though. The day will come when we will meet the news of the killing of pre-born children with the same horror that we now feel when we listen to documentaries like the one above.

I am looking forward to the day when a CBC reporter witnesses the meeting of a famous abortion doctor and the women whose child he has aborted.

When he sits down with her on a white swing on his front porch and tells her how sorry he is. When he tells her he wished he had really helped her through her unplanned pregnancy. When he tells her that he now knows he was wrong and begs her for her forgiveness. When he tells her he was wrong for what he did to her. When he apologizes for all the other women he didn't help either. It will be a moment worth watching.

We will watch the reporter as he stands transfixed at the scene unfolding in front of him. How he can't help but literally shake, knowing that history is being made.

It will be a day when the hatred of the most unwanted of the unwanted, will end. It may also take 47 years. That's okay. We can wait.

Will Motion allow MPs to speak out on abortion?

So we now know that Justin Trudeau is putting forward his own motion to:
"open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

But this has confused me, based on a prior tweet to a CBC reporter when he said that:
"Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right. See my policy on democratic reform at Justin.ca"

So I just sent Mr. Trudeau the following email to ask him to clarify his tweet, in light of this Liberal Motion.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

Recently you said in a tweet that you are: "Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right. See my policy on democratic reform at Justin.ca"

And today you made this statement that:

“Members of Parliament from all parties should be community leaders, free to share the priorities and express the views of those they represent,” said Mr. Trudeau. “That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities."

The Liberal Opposition Day motion, to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons on Monday, would change House of Commons rules to ensure that every MP has an equal opportunity to raise issues of importance to their communities. Currently, that process is controlled by party leadership, which decides who will speak and on what issues.

“Canadians must have confidence that the candidates they elect will represent their views in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s views to them,” said Mr. Trudeau. “Our motion is a strong step in the right direction and we hope that all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, will agree to support it.”

Can you please clarify for me whether or not, you would allow an MP to use their Member Statement (SO31) to speak out against abortion?

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

I'll post his reply once I hear back from him. Stay tuned.