Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Graphic Images - Controversial but Necessary

The video below has been removed by YouTube. It amazes me that all forms of media allow and permit pornography of all kinds, but they refuse to show abortion. Connect the dots - pornography is a major contributor to the breakdown of sexual morality and therefore it increases the need for abortion. Our society simply cannot live without abortion, because it is necessary to clean up the debris of sexual licentiousness. So don't let anyone fool you by saying that showing the facts about abortion is offensive - the real reason they don't want it shown is because they have to have abortion available to maintain their lifestyles.

As for CCBR's use of trucks to show the reality of abortion to the people of Calgary, I think the removal of this video by YouTube shows exactly that they must be doing something right. This video has been pulled for the very same reasons that objections are made to CCBR's use of graphic imagery: both hit too close to the truth and people are uncomfortable with that. All the more reason for why they must continue what they are doing. Abortion should make people terribly uncomfortable; it is only when people feel truly sickened by it, that we are going to see them brave enough to do something to stop it.

"The pictures are graphic because abortion is graphic."

"Injustice that is invisible, inevitably becomes tolerable." - Greg Cunningham

"Injustice that is made visible, inevitably becomes intolerable." - Stephanie Gray, Executive Director of CCBR

"If abortion is too horrible to view, then perhaps it is too horrible to tolerate." - Stephanie Gray

"I think this project really pricks people in their conscience, whether they be pro-life or pro-abortion because it shows the pro-aborts what they have to defend, the pictures don't lie, and it shows the pro-lifers what they've been tolerating all this time...
Are we responding to this atrocity, 100,000 killed Canadian citizens every year, the same way as if 100,000 new-borns or toddlers were being killed every year? And if the answer is no, then at some level, we're not equating the unborn as fully human as the born." - driver of the truck with the graphic images

"With almost 300 children being killed every day, pro-lifers can't just wait for Canadians to want to get educated about abortion. We need to force the debate open." - Stephanie Gray

I think she is absolutely right. Just today, I was speaking with a priest who was saying that being pro-life has to be part of the "seamless garment" of Christian theology. Where did I read just recently that that argument is deeply flawed? It was the argument used by Obama when he addressed the graduates at Notre Dame; it is the logic used by the clergy to avoid speaking about abortion clearly to their congregations. The logic is flawed; imagine if that logic had been used in the days of William Wilberforce - when you make the comparison between abortion and slavery, you realise how flawed this reasoning is. It continues to keep abortion hidden and tolerated; this rhetoric is "safe", and when people speak like this about the injustice of abortion, they avoid the reality of what is occurring - that real children are really being killed.

Note: in re-reading this, I realised that I hadn't even said what the "seamless garment" thinking is.

...the consistent ethic/seamless garment rationale first emerged under that name a decade and a half later, proposed by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. He adopted the approach in the early 1980s in order to make the case that concern about the fundamental value of human life ought to predispose advocates of various life-related issues -- from forestalling abortion to ending capital punishment to cleaning up the environment -- to form a united front of commitment to the sanctity and quality of life in a variety of contexts.
In case you wonder, that's the error which supposes -- or pretends to suppose -- that if some issue (curbing pollution, let's say) can be lined up more or less convincingly under the heading "human life," it carries the same moral weight as any of its cousins grouped under the same heading (abortion, euthanasia, whatever).

This reasoning then supplies the basis for a simplistic counting exercise: If Candidate A takes the side of life on eight issues and Candidate B does the same on fifteen, then B obviously is the authentic pro-life candidate -- and never mind that A's issues include abortion and euthanasia and B's do not. That fantasy calculus is sometimes used in the ongoing abortion wars and lately has provided a significant part of the reasoning of Catholics who support President Barack Obama.
- Russell Shaw, InsideCatholic.com, 8/17/09
Rethinking the Seamless Garment

While the idea of a "seamless garment" of life issues sounds really good, what I have noticed is that those who support this thinking always seem to be rather wishy-washy when asked to speak clearly on an issue. And wishy-washy always equals luke-warm, and remember the words of Scripture about being spat out of someone's mouth

Sunday, August 16, 2009

And I'm Someone Who Likes Dogs ....

Teddy, our dog

Last night, my neighbours had some company over. These neighbours are a young married couple, who actually are our tenants as we own the house next door which has three flats. A very nice young couple, she is the working one, he is working on an accounting degree and looking for work, and they have a dog. No problem with any of that.

But last night, and this is the second time this has happened, they invited friends over for dinner and they were having a BBQ on the back porch. There must have been four couples in all, and they all brought dogs, small dogs, the kind that you pamper and sit on your lap, the kind that don't require much in the way of exercise, and the kind that yap.

My level of irritation kept rising, as the conversation that drifted over the side of the deck was "oh isn't Jack cute", "here Maggie, have you pooped again?", "fetch it Maggie", and tales of what Jack and Maggie and others had done, that was "so cute". I had to retreat indoors, even though yesterday was the hottest night we have had this summer and sitting out on the deck where it was still warm and bug-free was the place to be. I simply couldn't take the inane chatter any longer. They talked of nothing but their dogs.

Then, at around ten, I was upstairs and heard a lot of barking. I mean there must have been five or six dogs barking. And laughter, coming from the owners who thought this was so amusing as all the dogs barked at someone walking past the fence. No effort to restrain them, just amusement at their dogs' behaviour. I had had it, out I went (after all, I am the landlord), popped my head around the deck lattice and asked "could you please keep your dogs quiet?"

Well, I guess they got scared because it became immediately very quiet. I went inside and calmed my thoughts. My mind was ranting, which I am learning is not productive. But this morning, in retrospect, I will rant without anger.

I see them everywhere, young couples, married or not, with their dogs. No children, just dogs. And no sign of children. If you asked them, I am sure that more than half would say "oh no, we are not going to have children". I am not being skeptical here or judgmental; this is simply the way it is. Some will, with the passing of years, decide that they should have one child and then try to get pregnant in their late 30's, and then have to resort to medical intervention at a terrific cost to their fellow tax-payers if you live where state medical care is the norm. For a scathing article on the cost of IVF to society, read Why Should IVF Be Available on the NHS? by Ed West

When we first moved to this neighbourhood, twenty two years ago, there were 40 children on the long block. The other day, I counted and there are twenty. Demographics plays a part, I realise, as the neighbourhood is not in the price range of young families and they are buying homes in the suburbs of the city, rather than close to the downtown core. But there are several young couples moving in and buying homes as older folks move to condos or die, and they are not having babies either. Behind me lives a single woman of 40, who has had a series of monogamous relationships, none of whom lives with her. Across from her is another woman who chased her husband from the home and now lives alone with her Labradoodle. Next to her is a lesbian whose partner sometimes stays, sometimes just visits, but she might actually be in the process of obtaining a new partner as there is a new mannish woman at the house. Next house is a couple married for 25 years, no children, but a series of Nova Scotia duck-tollers (that's a breed of dog raised here in Nova Scotia). The only normal family is the one right beside us, they have two children, and they have just sold the house in order to obtain a larger one where they will have room for her mother to live with them. We are sorry to lose them and hope that the new owners will be a family. Next house, a couple, he is divorced with two boys in England; the new wife (perhaps just girlfriend) is a young woman at least 15 years his junior and they will have no more children. I feel very sorry for her, as she is such a lovely young woman and would be a wonderful mom. But I guess the divorce has jaded him and there will be no more children to tear at the heart strings.

It seems that the present generation is completely pre-occupied with their own careers, happiness, material gains. After all, you can't have children unless you have bought a house and can afford that mortgage. And I know that financial concerns are a worry. But we do live in one of the wealthiest nations in the world and for us to think that we can't afford children is a joke. Look at the poor of the world and then say you can't afford a family.

So how has this happened? while walking my dog this morning, I was reflecting on this as I have so many other times. When a generation is navel-gazing, such as this one is, it must be because their parents did not show them how to be unselfish. I remember reading years ago that Rose Kennedy, the matriarch of the Kennedy clan, stated that if you don't teach your children how to be unselfish by the age of five, forget it. They will never learn after that. Not so sure that she was successful with all her children, but I do think that is a pearl of wisdom. Parents are so concerned with providing everything for their children, in order to ensure that their lives will be easier, that they are depriving those kids of what they need most: the strength of character required to become the next generation of parents. Strength of character is not built by providing the best of education, or by providing kids with the best learning tools, or participation in all the sports activities that abound. It is built by teaching children how to think about others, how to live their lives realising that "the other" has as much going on in their hearts and minds as they do. And learning to live so that "the other" can be happy too. In other words, thinking of "the other" is the way to raise kids.

If we don't do that, we end up (as we have) with a generation that prefers to have dogs than children (because really they don't answer back, they don't break curfews, they don't keep bad company - they can be controlled without any worry of their individual personality coming into conflict with ours - in other words, they aren't persons), a generation that is thinking of the house they will buy rather than the people who will live in it, a generation that is thinking of career satisfaction because otherwise "I will be frustrated and unfulfilled".

Of all the things that we try to teach our children and try to give our children, surely the first one should be how to grow into the people who will be able to parent the next generation. No, I don't mean that we look at ourselves as baby-makers, but there is a continuum in life that needs to be respected. And foremost in that continuum is the passing on of life to children. Once we lose that, we have lost everything.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

The New Imperialism

When the rich of the world get together to discuss how to control the population of the rest of the world, they are really talking about the Third World. After all, the western world is already doing a number on eliminating itself. It is not North America or Europe whose population these folks want to control; it is Africa, South America, India and China where the poorest of people live.

World's Elite Make Population Control #1 Priority against Backdrop of Underpopulation Threat

On May 5, an elite group of extremely rich people met to discuss the looming threat of over-population. The group was called by Bill Gates, and those invited were David Rockerfeller Jr, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey. Gates needs no introduction as the inventor of Microsoft, the ruling software giant in the world, but what is interesting is that Gates has only one child and is himself the child of a father who was on the board of Planned Parenthood. Gates fully subscribes to the belief that reproductive rights are one of the primary benefits that women should have (reproductive rights always means abortion). Buffet and Soros are international financiers, Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City. Turner and Winfrey are the media moguls who mistakenly believe that they control the minds of North Americans through television.

This group believes that having children is going to do the planet in. But they ignore the fact that the opposite seems to be happening. Across the world, fertility rates have fallen from 6 children per woman in 1979 to 2.9 today and is falling. Many European countries are hovering at or have fallen below 2.1 which is the minimum for self-replacement; some are dangerously close to 1.3 (Spain is below that at 1.1), the rate at which a nation loses half its population every 45 years.

There is something absolutely fishy going on when the very rich determine that those who are the poorest on earth should stop having children. Are they afraid of having to share their wealth, or cut back their own lifestyles? Do they falsely believe that all the world, or at least those educated and spoiled like themselves, should enjoy the prosperity of the developed world? Or are they just plain scared that the poor of the world might just outnumber those who think they now control the earth's resources and they might have to share to the point of feeling uncomfortable?

This is simply imperialism in a new and crueler mode. Instead of taking slaves to ensure their own prosperity, they push for abortion in the Third World, taking from the poor one of their greatest treasures - their children. These philanthropists, who advertise their give-aways on the media, don't know what it is to do without; it doesn't hurt them one bit to give away millions as they do, or as Oprah did, to build girls' schools in South Africa with every girl having her own cell phone upon which she can dial Oprah's hotline in an emergency. They parade their good deeds in front of men and they have had their rewards.
I would be impressed with these folks if they took their money and actually helped the Third World in a truly humane way, such as providing clean water, building hospitals, caring for the sick, rather than pushing condoms and abortion in the contraceptive/abortive mindset of the "enlightened" western world. How about some real works of mercy, a la Mother Teresa?

Be careful not to parade your good deeds before men to attract their notice; by doing this you will lose all reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give alms, do not have it trumpeted before you; this is what the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win men’s admiration. I tell you solemnly, they have had their reward. But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing; your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you. - Matthew 6:16-17

Do not be overawed when a man grows rich,
when the splendor of his house increases;
for he will take nothing with when he dies,
his splendor will not descend with him.
Though while he lived he counted himself blessed -
and men praise you when you prosper -
he will join the generation of his fathers,
who will never see the light of life.
A man who has riches without understanding
is like the beasts that perish. - Psalm 49:`16-20

Friday, August 7, 2009

40 Days for Life Triumphs in Montreal

This past spring, pro life Montrealers held a 40 Days for Life vigil outside the Clinique M├ędicale de l'Alternative in Montreal, Quebec. The province of Quebec has not had a pro life movement for the past ten years, and the province leads the country in the number of abortions performed there.

Yet, tonight I read that the Clinique de l'Alternative will be closing. I am not sure if this is the clinic outside of which the 40 Days vigil was held, but it is one of the Morgentaler clinics in that city and it is closing!

Quebec's new Law 34 requires clinics to have an operating room to do abortions. The Clinique l'Alternative considers this change too onerous and will not renew its contract with the government to do abortions.

The abortion clinics are negotiating with the government to make modifications favorable to their trade. But even if these negotiations are successful, the clinic will not come back on its decision.

The clinic does about 1000 abortions a year. Three doctors and four nurses were fired.

While many of these abortions will probably be done in other clinics in the city, no doubt that some will be saved because of the delay.

Big Blue Wave

It is amazing the way that God can work. In a province where one could hardly expect to get any results, this is a surprising piece of news. Isn't it great the way God does end runs around things sometimes?

Yes, I realise that the abortions will be done elsewhere, and that another clinic may even open to take on the demand. But this clinic will be closing, and that will send a message to those who have ears to hear. Remember the victory has been won on the Cross, we are not asked to be successful in our work, we are only asked to be faithful.

This gives me great hope for our upcoming vigil here in Halifax. As we stand in front of a massive hospital, not knowing if the women going for abortions even know of our presence there, we can place our faith in the knowledge that God is in control and that God honours our prayers. I can hardly wait for our vigil to begin!

Further information on this breaking news is available at

Thursday, August 6, 2009

I Like When People Cut to the Quick

With all the talk about abortion and fetal rights, we realise that for some, the argument on behalf of the unborn simply doesn't carry any significance. They refuse to acknowledge fetal rights, despite the scientific evidence, but hold fast to the belief that women have the right to control their own bodies, even if that means terminating the life of their child.

Why so adamant to maintain legal abortion? why are they so firmly entrenched in their position of being pro-choice and will not recognize the findings of medical science?

Well, I have always suspected that the real reason behind this stubbornness is the fact that abortion is absolutely necessary for the culture spawned by the sexual revolution of the 60's. And recently, I have found that this is being expressed by a number of writers who put it much more eloquently than I could. So here are some links to some very good articles.

The Twisted Logic Underlying Abortion by Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

An excerpt
"....one of the pro-choicers finally blurted out: "We're pro-sex and you're anti-sex," meaning, according to Vree, that "they're for lots of sex in lots of forms while we pro-lifers feel it should be limited to heterosexual marriage. . . . They made it abundantly clear that they're committed to the sexual revolution, and that revolution will wither without the insurance which is abortion and this is their bottom-line concern."

"Men these days can choose only sex, not fatherhood; mothers alone determine whether children shall be allowed to exist. Legalized abortion was supposed to grant enormous freedom to women, but it has had the perverse result of freeing men and trapping women.
The likelihood of this cultural development was seen by the radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon. In an essay called "Privacy vs. Equality," MacKinnon argued that "abortion's proponents and opponents share a tacit assumption that women do significantly control sex. Feminist investigations suggest otherwise. Sexual intercourse ... cannot simply be presumed coequally determined." Indeed, she added, "men control sexuality," and "Roe does not contradict this."

Easy access to abortion has increased the expectation and frequency of sexual intercourse (including unprotected intercourse) among young people, making it more difficult for a woman to deny herself to a man without losing him, thus increasing pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections....

Prior to the legalization of abortion in the United States, it was commonly understood that a man should offer a woman marriage in case of pregnancy, and many did so. But with the legalization of abortion, men started to feel that they were not responsible for the birth of children and consequently not under any obligation to marry. In gaining the option of abortion, many women have lost the option of marriage. Liberal abortion laws have thus considerably increased the number of families headed by a single mother, resulting in what some economists call the "feminization of poverty."

Throughout human history, children have been the consequence of natural sexual relations between men and women. Both sexes knew they were equally responsible for their children, and society had somehow to facilitate their upbringing.... Elective abortion changes everything. Abortion absolutely prevents the birth of a child. A woman's choice for or against abortion breaks the causal link between conception and birth. It matters little what or who caused conception or whether the male insisted on having unprotected intercourse. It is she alone who finally decides whether the child comes into the world. She is the responsible one. For the first time in history, the father and the doctor and the health-insurance actuary can point a finger at her as the person who allowed an inconvenient human being to come into the world."
- Her Choice, Her Problem, How Abortion Empowers Men by Richard Stith, published in First Things #195

"America continues to have some of the most permissive abortion laws in the world. The pro-life movement has made some progress in its arguments, shifting the center of debate, yet it has failed to put even a dent in Roe v. Wade and successor rulings. Three and a half decades after Roe, the abortion casualty toll approaches a staggering 50 million.
Why then, in the face of its abominably bad arguments, does the pro-choice movement continue to prevail legally and politically? My answer is that abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution. We have seen a great shift in the sexual mores of Americans in the past half-century, and there is a widespread social understanding, especially acute among elites, that if there is going to be sex outside of marriage, there are going to be a considerable number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is viewed as a necessary clean-up solution for this social problem.
If you're going to make an omelet, the Marxist revolutionaries used to say, you have to be ready to break some eggs. By the same token, if you're going to have a sexual revolution, you've got to be ready to clean out the debris. After thirty five years, the debris has become a mountain, and as a society we are still adding bodies to the heap."
- Cleaning Up After the Sexual Revoluation - by Dinesh D'Souza

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

A Must Read

As I posted yesterday, I have lots of ideas, but seem to lack the time to blog about them. Perhaps I try to write too much. Every post becomes an article; and I thought today that isn't always necessary.

So rather than let another great idea pass by without mentioning it, I thought I would post short and sweet.

While driving this morning to the printers to pick up posters for 40 Days, I had the radio tuned to CJLU, the Christian radio station here in Halifax. Mornings are the best broadcasts, I personally have not found any Christian music that I like on the radio, so I skip all their music programs.

But the morning show features programs from well-known Christian evangelists, people who are well worth listening to. I have found here Pastor David Jeremiah, who teaches Scripture studies in a powerful way. Today, I was listening to a fascinating conversation, I recognized the voice of Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family, but I didn't know the other voice. But the subject was riveting. They were talking about a new book that the interviewee had just published and the conversation was centered on the fact that youth today simply do not know the tenets of the Christian faith, even those who are attending evangelical Christian churches.

The man interviewed compared his time in the US army, when he spent 16 hours per day learning military routine and being prepared for military defense. He stated that we are engaged in a far more serious battle, one with an eternal destiny, yet our youth are completely unprepared for this. I was taken by surprise when I learned the man speaking was Chuck Colson, the figure indicted in the Watergate scandal.

Now I know this man had a major conversion and one of his books sits on a shelf right behind me as I type. But I really didn't know much about him so the book never grabbed me. It seems that my husband Nick has found all these people years ago and he has read them all; there is little that he doesn't know about. In fact, it is his prodding that is now making me open my eyes to what is happening politically in the world; so if he says "I told you so", I cannot blame him.

Anyway, this is a broadcast you should listen to. You can tune in to it at the Focus on the Family website:
Focus on the Family

The specific link to Chuck's book is this one
Chuck Colson's book

On that page, you can click to listen to Chuck in a short video. His book is called
The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters and it is another book that I am just going to have to order.

In the radio broadcast, Chuck related briefly his conversion, how another political figure witnessed to him that his life had been changed by coming to know Jesus Christ. This sowed a seed in Colson that returned months later, when he was feeling despair about his own life and he went back to see this man. Later that evening, he sat in his car unable to get out and just wept, and asked God to take over his life. He said that was 35 years ago and his life has not been the same since. A remarkable story by a remarkable man. Check it out.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Too Busy to Blog

My daughter asked yesterday "why no blogs, Mom?"

Not that I have an extensive readership that is just drying up from my lack of writing, but perhaps an explanation is in order.

Family visits took priority in the last little while, as our daughter Rebecca came home for the first time in 5 1/2 years, bringing with her a husband Nate, plus two sons Rhett, aged two, and Jasper, aged 8 months. It was a great visit and you can read about it here, plus see some photos of the family and where we live.

Canadian visit

I am blogging, just not on this blog. At the moment, I am in the middle of organizing the fall 40 Days for Life vigil here in Halifax and it seems to be about all that I am capable of.

So you can visit that blog if you wish

40 Days for Life Halifax blog

I will get back here, lots of ideas in my head (perhaps too many) which could be why I am kind of paralyzed at getting them out. Where to start? But I think I am finding out that I really am someone who does better if she doesn't multi-task! I suspect that most of us are like that in actuality.