Saturday, June 27, 2009

Taking a Lead from India

Picture from Life Site News


Feminists of the west should take heed of this news item from India -

Indian Women March Against Sex-Selection Abortion

A three-kilometre march, comprised of thousands of women and 10,000 female students with signs that said "Do not kill us" and "discrimination against the girl child leads to abortion". India, a country which still suffers from the caste system and where families are burdened by wedding dowries, perceives girls to be a financial burden.

According to UN reports, as many as 5 million children are aborted in India each year. Despite laws banning ultrasounds to determine the sex of an unborn child, the abortion industry routinely targets unwanted girl babies, resulting in one of the world's worst cases of population gender imbalance. - Michael van der Mast and Hilary White, LifeSiteNews, June 26, 2009


Last week, there was a news item about pregnancy kits that would reveal the gender of a fetus; these are soon to be available in New Zealand for $125.

"We see this kit as being a threat to the human rights of unborn children, and especially female children," Right to Life's Ken Orr told Breakfast. We have a large Asian community in New Zealand, and in Asia there is a cultural acceptance of abortion for sex selection."

However, Australian distributor, Melbourne-based Early Image managing director David Portnoy says he would be "amazed if anybody was to do anything so drastic based on a urine test that has a 90% accuracy rate". -
Foetal Gender Test Kit, www.tvns.co.ns


I am very skeptical of statements made by companies that manufacture or distribute medical drugs and technology; their vested interest in the product should disqualify them from being taken seriously. After all, Merck & Co., the company that manufactures Gardasil, doesn't seem to be taking seriously the 18 deaths and 140 complications from that vaccine.
Death toll linked to Gardasil vaccine rises

A few years ago, I read A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry - set in India in the mid 70's, it is a sensitive look at modern India written by a man who grew up there and now lives in Canada. I was shocked to realise that such inhumane treatment of people was actually going on in the latter half of the twentieth century. And it was a revelation to read how the caste system was still operative in many areas of India. At the same time, I remember that this is the country loved by Mother Teresa and these are the people who loved her in return. And I recall Mother Teresa's statement about true poverty, saying that America with all its material wealth was poorer than India because it didn't treasure life.

It is heartening to see that it is the women of this country who may be the ones to show the liberated Western world the truth about abortion - and that the feminist argument for a woman's "right to choose" has met its logical nemesis in the problem of sex-selection abortion.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Pro Abortion Logic Back at You

This woman is brilliantly funny, irreverent yes, but funny you have to give her.

Ann Coulter with Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly begins the interview with Ann Coulter, stating that "there has been so much reaction from the liberal left-wing media to our reporting on it (Tiller's murder) that I think you should know what's going on." Coulter is the author of Guilty, Liberal Victims and Their Assault upon America. O'Reilly notes that there are a few right-wing women who are talking about the Tiller murder, but very few "of the right-wing men pundits talk about it". He goes on to say that he was never surprised that media like the NY Times were on Tiller's side while he was alive, but what he doesn't understand is the vitriolic attacks upon him (O'Reilly) in reporting on Tiller's death.

Many liberals have been pointing fingers at people like Bill O'Reilly, Jill Stanek, and Father Frank Pavone, accusing them of inflaming the abortion debate and inciting someone to kill George Tiller. But the liberal left defends abortion, even late term abortion, and they are coming out in favour of assisted suicide and euthanasia; why is it, Coulter asks

in this one case, they're finally against someone dying: a man responsible for killing 60,000 babies?


Coulter also states that 80% of the American population are against late term abortion; yet liberals on the left have to defend these terrible abortions, just as they have to defend infanticide and euthanasia. Their track record is that they are on the pro-death side. They are not pro-choice; they are pro-death.

Coulter pulls no punches; when O'Reilly states that Tiller was doing late-term abortions for the most casual of reasons, Coulter interrupts and says "he was doing it for the money." And here is a taste of Coulter's sarcasm:

I don't like really like to think of it as a murder, it was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester .... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others.... But their logic is if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have an abortion; if you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot an abortionist. No, their logic is always for death.... I'm talking the pro-abortion liberals, that is pretty much the Democratic party.


Coulter wraps up by stating that the liberal left is afraid to face this horrendous issue of late term abortion and that it is crazy to be afraid of this issue. Accusing the pro-life movement, which is demonstrably peaceful, of inciting the murder of Tiller is absolutely in contradiction to the media treatment of Muslim terrorism. After September 11, great pains were taken not to accuse the Muslim people on the whole of this crime; however an abortion doctor is killed and everyone in the left wing media proclaims that the pro-life movement is guilty.

Not only is their logic inverted, but they do not use the same standard to judge the actions of different people. Now what is that called? oh yeah, bias.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Women Subjected to the Burqa


Two robbers (a man and a woman) disguised in Afghan-style robes stole 200,000 pounds worth of jewellery from an exclusive London store, March 2002. (photo from BBC)

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has stated that the head-to-toe covering, the burqa, is not welcome in France.

We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity ... that is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity ... the burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience .... it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic. - Nicolas Sarkozy, June 22, 2009


Read the article here

Sarkozy also stated that it was important to distinguish between respecting a religion such as Islam and outlawing the wearing of the burqa. I would hope that his statement that "civil servants must not wear any outward sign of their religion, whether they are Catholics, Jewish, Orthodox, Protestants or Muslims" does not include the wearing of small jewellery such as crosses or the Star of David. They do not restrict one's movements or hide one's identity from others.

The photo above does raise the question of security - after all, we identify people first by their face, but wearing a burqa makes a person unidentifiable. This is not a case of rejecting the apparel of a certain culture; after all, most of us have no problem with Indian women wearing the sari; in fact, I find them most of them quite beautiful. But a burqa is not a dress of beauty, it is a shroud to hide women.

I have often wondered how one could drive a car with such limited vision. My father who had his left eye removed surgically, was required to have a row of mirrors fitted to his car so that he could drive. Without those mirrors, he had a blind spot that was considerably larger than normal. Surely a burqa restricts vision to the point of being unsafe. If one cannot drive without wearing glasses if they are prescribed, then how can one drive with one's eyes covered like this?

There's a contradiction at the heart of Islamist confidence, nicely caught in a story from New Zealand about female Muslims driving around in burqas. According to some police representatives, this mode of dress somewhat restricts the field of vision, and also offers opportunities for fleeing bank robbers to disguise themselves as Muslim women. However, nobody wants to be insensitive, do they? And, on the whole, the police were happy to take the Islamic lobby groups at their word that the burqa was a requirement of these women's faith. But as Greg O'Connor, president of the New Zealand Police Association, couldn't resist adding, "If one's belief system was so strong that you didn't want to show one's face then perhaps that belief system should extend to not driving." Indeed, if your clothing can't evolve out of the camel train era, maybe your mode of trasportation shouldn't either. But that's Islam in the third millennium; they want the certainties of seventh century society with the conveniences of the twenty-first century. - America Alone, by Mark Steyn


Perhaps feminists should think about the rights of Muslim women and begin to lobby for them. There is no doubt that many Muslim women are being repressed and, in some cases, worse. From genital mutilation to honour killings to being covered up from head to toe, surely these women would love some emancipation.

Support women's rights - real rights, not feminist pieties - in the Muslim world. This is the biggest vulnerability in Islam. Not every Muslim female wants to be Gloria Steinem or Paris Hilton. But nor do they want a life that starts with genital mutilation and ends with an honor killing at the hands of your brothers. The overwhelming majority of females in Continental battered women's shelters are Muslim - which gives you some sense of what women in the Middle East might do if they had any women's shelters to go to. When half the population of these societies is a potential source of dissent, we need to use it. - America Alone, by Mark Steyn


Today, I saw a woman in a burqa picking up her children at the local Muslim school here in Halifax. And yes, she was getting into an SUV and driving them home. In a veil of fabric so that even her own children could not see her face.

Well done, Mr. Sarkozy, I hope your words echo loudly in Europe where thousands of Muslim women are trapped in their curtains of fabric.

Messiah or President?



Scary, when an elected President is treated like a Messiah.

h/t Mitchell Blatt

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Development and Peace



Just released, a video from LifeSiteNews on the latest findings of their investigation of Development and Peace, the social justice outreach of the Canadian Council of Bishops. Please pass this link on to your email contacts and be sure to inform people of the misguided efforts of Development and Peace. No Catholic organization should be funding, either directly or indirectly, anti-life policies that are in complete defiance of Catholic teaching.

Time to Speak Out

A news item in LifeSiteNews this week got me thinking about possible similar events here in Nova Scotia.

Federal Conservatives Give $400K to Toronto Gay Pride Week

A quick internet search brought up that Gay Pride Week will take place here in Halifax the week of July 18 to 25, culminating in the Gay Pride March on Saturday July 25. Even a cursory look at any such march reveals that this is not about the tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle choice, but is rather an orgy of homosexual behaviour.

Yet, we stand back and are silent, while tax money is given to this organization and onlookers gather to be amused, and our youth are demoralized and lured into behaviour that is self-destructive.

The website for the Halifax march states:
Our theme this year is Breaking Down Walls; Building Bridges! We drew inspiration from the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, the event that many see as the birth of the Gay Pride Movement.


The Stonewall riots occurred in the summer of 1969

when a group of gay New Yorkers made a stand against raiding police officers at The Stonewall Inn, a popular gay bar in the Village... As the police raided the bar, a crowd of four hundred patrons gathered on the street outside and watched the officers arrest the bartender, the doorman, and a few drag queens. The crowd, which eventually grew to an estimated 2000 strong, was fed up. Something about that night ignited years of anger at the way police treated gay people. Chants of “Gay Power!” echoed in the streets. Soon, beer bottles and trash cans were flying.

Police reinforcements arrived and beat the crowd away. It looked like it was over. But the next night, the crowd returned, even larger than the night before. For two hours, protesters rioted in the street outside of the Stonewall Inn until the police sent a riot-control squad to disperse the crowd.

On the first night alone, 13 people were arrested and four police officers were injured. At least two rioters were said to be severely beaten by the police and many more sustained injuries.

The following Wednesday, approximately 1000 protesters returned to continue the protest and march on Christopher Street. A movement had begun.

Stonewall turned out to be a pivotal moment in the gay rights movement. It united the gay community in New York in the fight against discrimination. The following year, a march was organized in commemoration of the Stonewall Riots and between 5,000 and 10,000 men and women attended the march. - About.com - Manhattan, NY


Just how much of the population is gay? Estimates are placed at around 10%, and this number comes from the work of Alfred Kinsey, a biologist who founded the Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction at Indiana University. The institute is now called the Kinsey Institute for Reserach in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. What is not commonly known is that Kinsey's research
included ciminal sexual abuse of infants, and that a substantial part of his survey population was drawn from prison inmates and 'gay' bars- but they were represented by Kinsey as typical of the whole population. Kinsey himself was a homosexual who died from orchitis, an inflammation of the testes often caused by excessive sexual self-abuse. - BC teachers' 'social justice' conference, by Ron Gray, Catholic Insight June 2009


Actually Kinsey was bi-sexual and he was married with four children.

James H. Jones's biography, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, describes Kinsey as bisexual, and experimenting in masochism. He encouraged group sex involving his graduate students, wife and staff. Kinsey filmed sexual acts in the attic of his home as part of his research. Biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy explained that using Kinsey's home for the filming of sexual acts was done to ensure the films' secrecy, which would certainly have caused a scandal had the public become aware of them. - Alfred Kinsey, Wikipedia


So this is the man who has written the Bible of sexual behaviour, and upon whose work most of the sexual theories of today rest. Surely the work of someone with a personal life such as this cannot be taken as representative? Yet his work stands, largely uncontested. Kinsey estimated that 10% of the population was homosexual or gay; however independent polls place that percentage as less than 5%, actually closer to 2%.

An interview with a man who once practised a homosexual lifestyle, but has since left that life and now runs a ministry to help others leave that lifestyle, provides insights into what is going on:

I am one of thousands of men and women who are living proof that there is no basis whatsoever to pass any legislation equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. It’s a lie. It’s simply a lie. Again, from myself, coming out from that lifestyle years ago, I’m the first to tell you that it’s nothing but a deceptive counterfeit. It doesn’t bring forth life, it brings forth death. It’s not birthed out of anything good, it’s birthed out of trauma and out of dysfunction and things early on in childhood that have caused people to go down this path.

Homosexual activists have just forcefully said “we don’t care what you think and we’re just gonna do what we’re gonna do, simply put.” And they’ve used the media as their major conduit to introduce all kinds of gay characters, to desensitize people to the issue of homosexuality.

There was a book that came out in 1991 called “after the ball”, written by two homosexual social scientists, and I say that this book was the Osama Bin Laden video tape of 9/11. They clearly spelled out how they were going to convert America over a ten year period to buy into the idea that gay is ok. These people have completely succeeded. Their book is like a book of the bible of prophesy which has been almost completely fulfilled.

So America has been duped, the tables have been turned, and now we’re suffering the consequences, and I say we are literally all like lambs being led to the slaughter right now and people are just buying into this false misinformation campaign of the gay activists. - Stephen Bennett

Read the entire interview here

The "gay rights" movement has acquired the ability to pressure our culture into accepting these displays of deviant sexual behaviour. They even manage to get funding for them. Pepsi-Cola is a huge corporate sponsor of the homosexual agenda and their products include Mountain Dew, Frito Lay, Gatorade, Quaker Oats, Aquafina bottled water to name a few. Pepsi even has mandatory sessions for their employees to ensure that no one is homophobic.

If the percentage of the population that is gay is that small, why should the rest of us bend to accommodate this group? They wield enormous political power; after all, homosexuals have both the time and the money to advance their agenda, because they aren't busy taking care of their families.

Why should any society endorse a movement that tries to recruit members, when the activity promoted actually causes disease? Practising homosexuals have a lower life expectancy than heterosexuals; the number one group contracting and spreading AIDS in North America are homosexuals with multiple partners. Why would anyone promote this? Not only is it dangerous to those who engage in this lifestyle, but it is going to cost the health care system a great deal in the near future.

I know that there are people who sincerely believe that they are homosexuals and I do not berate them at all. What I do take a stand against is the insistence by the homosexual group that tolerance of their lifestyle is not enough; they insist that we accept their lifestyle as normal. Normal it is not. I would say rather that it is narcissistic and suicidal; homosexuals do not care about the future generation, in fact they are busy making sure there isn't going to be one.

We Christians are too silent on this. I see young men and women adopting this lifestyle that will enslave them. True freedom does not exist in surrendering to base sexual behaviour; freedom comes from living in the truth purchased for us by Jesus Christ who loved us to the point of death.

"For you have been bought with a great price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit for you are His." I Corinthians 6:20

Monday, June 15, 2009

It's in the Demographics

Mosque being built in Halifax, Nova Scotia

I am in the middle of reading America Alone by Mark Steyn, subtitle "The End of the World As We Know It". In one chapter, he opens by stating: look at the news headlines on any given day and chances are, there are Muslim names in every item. This morning, I turned on the old laptop that sits on the breakfast table; it opens to the BBC world news as its home page and sure enough - 6 items were listed on the right as top headlines; 4 of those involved clashes with the Islamic world.

This is a frightening book and, I fear, one that is not taken seriously by many and written off by others who think it is too far-fetched. But I have never read anyone with such keen insight, delivered with such wit and keen turn of phrase. It is sort of like reading Ann Coulter (whom I enjoy immensely) but Steyn has a much greater knowledge base.

Mark Steyn is no fool; why this book isn't mandatory reading for all political figures in the west, I don't know. Of course, reading it would completely jeopardize their careers, especially those with left leanings.

For those who aren't familiar with Mark Steyn, he is a Canadian-born journalist who was educated in England. He left school early to become a film critic for The Spectator, but in later years migrated over to conservative political commentary. He now resides in New Hampshire with his wife and three children and is a regular contributor to Macleans magazine, as well as for numerous other publications, and also has his own site - Steyn Online.

Steyn was tried by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for being Islamophobic, when a complaint was lodged against him for repeating a line actually spoken by a Muslim about "muslims breeding like mosquitoes". The charge was dropped after some investigation; however, like all Human Rights Commission trials, Steyn was left holding the bag for his legal costs.

America Alone is a riveting book; facts about the state of countries in Europe are startling; who knew that Scandinavia has become 40% Muslim in the space of one generation? Just the statistics on the birth rate in European countries is frightening; with Europeans opting not to have babies, the Muslims are migrating into those countries and replacing the indigenous population with their own offspring. And the residents don't seem to see any problem with living alongside people for whom nationality is secondary; Muslims are of Islamic faith first, their country of residence is not their primary affiliation.

Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans, and currently the second biggest supplier of new Canadians. So it's worth mulling over the question John Howard (Aussie prime minister) suggests: What proportion of Western Islam is hot for jihad? Five percent? Ten, 12, 20 percent? ... Instead of a melting pot, there's conversion: a Scot can marry a Greek or a Botswanan, but when a Scot marries a Yemeni it's because the former has become a Muslim. In defiance of normal immigration patterns, the host country winds up assimilating with Islam: French municipal swimming baths introduce gender-segregated bathing sessions; Australian hospitals remove pork from the cafeteria menu.


Nor are the new crop of immigrants tolerant:

In their bizarre prioritization of "a woman's right to choose," feminists have helped ensure that European women will end their days in a culture that doesn't accord women the right to choose anything. Non-Muslim females in heavily Muslim neighborhoods in France now wear headscarves while out on the streets.


A recurrent theme throughout the book is the failure of the western world to reproduce itself in sufficient numbers to maintain population; in other words, we just don't have enough babies to keep our numbers up. So we rely on immigration to keep our population level sufficiently high enough to try and maintain the social programs that rely on heavy taxation, that taxation of course relying on increasing numbers of people.

A prime example is Spain with a birth rate of 1.1 babies per woman. Yikes, a country needs a birth rate of 2.1 just to maintain the population; Spain has dropped below the critical ratio of 1.3 beyond which there is no hope of recovery. Yet, the ruling party in Spain is trying to bring in legal abortion. What can they be thinking? Eliminate the only babies you have in order to what? extinguish yourself is the result - why they can't see this is beyond me. Does no one even look at Russia and see that that country is imploding? With an average of 5 abortions per woman in Russia and a male population that drinks itself to death by the average age of 58, they have literally no future. And the other countries in Europe seem to be following in their footsteps.

The reason that the book is called America Alone is because the United States is alone in the western world with a birth rate just above 2.1 babies per woman, which means that it is maintaining its population and is actually increasing at a slight rate. And because the US (so far) has resisted the allure of the welfare state, which is bankrupting Europe. The United States alone has the power to stem the tide of extinction that is washing over Europe and Canada and to stand against the wave of Islamification that is taking place everywhere else. But, with the current President, things are not looking good, as he bows to the Muslim world and begs forgiveness for American ideology, and he is quickly trying to turn the US into a country with vast welfare schemes just like Europe.

I highly recommend this book but not for bedtime reading; you will be far too disturbed to sleep. As one reviewer says: "Steyn can make you laugh, while you are retching."

It is not just the declining birth rate that comes under Steyn's lashing; he mocks the feminization of men that has happened in the West:

In 2005, I chanced to see a selection of images from Miss Shemale World celebrations outside Toronto's City Hall. And what struck me was not that "shemales" should want to have a big ol' parade showing off their outsized implants ... what seemed more pertinent was that the local government should think Miss Shemale World is an event that requires municipal approval. Of course, if they hadn't approved, they would have been guilty of being "non-inclusive".... a once manly nation has undergone a remarkable psychological makeover. In 1945, the Royal Canadian Navy had the third-largest surface fleet in the world: the Royal Canadian Air Force was one of the most effective air forces in the world: Canadian troops got the toughest beach on D-Day. But in the space of two generations, a bunch of tough hombres were transformed into a thoroughly feminized culture that prioritizes the secondary impulses of society - rights and entitlements from cradle to grave - over all the primary ones.


The socialized systems of Europe and Canada come in for a sound critique as well; Steyn blasts the lazy attitude of those who live in countries with socialised programs as they prefer to sit around and collect their benefits rather than work or come up with some new invention or technology; the prevailing attitude is to feel entitled to a shorter work week, more free time, a comfy pension plan, health benefits, less responsibility, and the result of that kind of attitude is someone who can't get excited about anything.

The populations of wealthy democratic societies expect to have total choice over their satellite TV packages, yet think it perfectly normal to allow the state to make all the choices in repsect of their health care. It's a curious inversion of citizenship to demand control over peripheral leisure activities but to contract out the big life-changing stuff to the government. And it's hard to come up with a wake-up call for a society as dedicated as latter-day Europe to the belief that life is about sleeping in.


We have really fallen for the nihilism of John Lennon's song Imagine:

"Imagine there's no heaven." No problem. Large majorities of Scandinavians and Dutchmen and Belgians are among the first peoples in human history to be unable to imagine there's any possibility of heaven: no free people have ever been so voluntarily secular.
"Imagine all the people/Living for today." Check.
"Imagine there's no countres." Check. The EU is a post-nationalist pseudo-state.
"Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion, too." You got it.


What else comes under his vindictive pen? the environmental movement, the population crisis movement, relativist ethics, religion-less society, atheism, materialism. But the biggest issue that Steyn attacks head on is the failure of western society to simply pro-create.

Statis Europe signed on to Hillary Rodham Clinton's alleged African proverb- "It takes a village to raise a child" - only to discover they got it backward: on the Continent, the lack of children will raze the village. And most of the villagers still refuse to recognize the contradictions: you can't breed at the lethargic rate of most Europeans and then bitch and whine about letting the Turks into the European Union. Demographically, they're the kids you couldn't be bothered to have.


If we are honest, I don't believe that we can deny Steyn's conclusions, harsh as they may come.

What's happening in the developed world is one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history. Most of us have seen a bazillion heartwarming ethnic comedies - My Big Fat Greek Wedding and its ilk - in which some uptight WASPy type starts dating a gal from a vast, loving, fecund Mediterranean family, so abundantly endowed with sisters and cousins and uncles that you can barely get in the room. It is, in fact, the inversion of the truth. Greece has a fertility rate hovering just below 1.3 births per couple, which is what demographers call the point of "lowest-low" fertility from which no human society has ever recovered. And Greece's fertility is the healthiest in Mediterranean Europe; Italy has a fertility rate of 1.2, Spain. 1.1.....
Hollywood should be making My Big Fat Uptight Protestant Wedding, in which some sad Greek only child marries into a big heartwarming New Zealand family where the spouse actually has a sibling....
There's no need to extrapolate, and if you do it gets a little freaky, but just for fun, here goes: by 2050, 60 percent of Italians will have no brothers, no sisters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles. The big Italian family, with papa pouring the vino and mama spooning out the pasta down an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews will be gone, no more, dead as the dinosaurs. ...


Definitely not bed-time reading, especially if you have a fondness for families.

America Alone, The End of the World as We Know It - by Mark Steyn available from his website www.steynonline.com

Thursday, June 11, 2009

News on Linda Gibbons

Linda Gibbons, the woman who has now spent over six years out of the last fifteen in jail, was remanded in custody to July 8.

It seems that the justice system cannot decide where to try Linda. The original charge of entering the prohibited zone is a civil charge, but the case has been tried in a criminal court, something that the judge is questioning. It seems to be all a play for time, in order not to look at the fact that the original injunction of the bubble zone was a temporary injunction set down in 1994. I think they keep playing cat and mouse with this one, because they don't want to admit that the injunction is an infringement of civil rights. Let's just keep those pro-life protestors scared of getting a little too close to the abortion clinics. And keeping Linda in jail for all this time certainly works at scaring the rest of them off.

Meanwhile, a letter from Linda reveals some of her daily routine. The jail had a lock-down recently and, restricted to her cell, what did Linda do but read the book of Jeremiah. And the most recent letter begins with a quote from Solzhenitsyn in his book The Gulag Archipelago:

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface we are implanting it, and it will rise a thousandfold in the future ... we are ripping the foundations from beneath new generations.


How fitting that she is reading the words of a Russian dissident who believed he had a warning to issue to the western world, learned in the atheistic abyss of Soviet Russia.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Using Graphic Imagery in Pro-Life Efforts

Yesterday, The Interim newspaper arrived by post and last night, a friend emailed to ask if I had read Rory Leishman's article How Best to Communicate the Message? She thought that his take on it was correct, and she said that she was not comfortable using graphic images when talking to people about abortion.

Well, really who is comfortable with graphic images? Isn't that the point? We are not meant to be comfortable with them, even when we are used to seeing them and using them to describe abortion to others. The very sight of dismembered, bloody body parts should send a chill down anyone's spine.

Leishman begins by writing about Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, who arrived at Notre Dame University pushing strollers with dolls covered in blood. But you know, most pro-lifers I know don't agree with that type of tactic either, not because it is graphic, but because it is unreal. A doll meant to symbolize an aborted baby and covered with ketchup is too much of a caricature to be taken seriously. A poster with real photos of abortion, however, is not a caricature but it is an accurate representation of the facts.

Leishman mentions that Calgary Bishop Henry has expressed strong opposition to the use of graphic imagery. Bishop Henry writes with regards to the Genocide Awareness Project, that is held on university campuses:

Its usage of pictures of aborted children violates their human dignity, denies human remains the respect that inherently must be accorded them and reduces them to things, albeit, for an arguably good reason. The end, however, does not justify the means.


I disagree with Bishop Henry here. Showing pictures of aborted babies is not disrespectful; rather, the pictures show what lack of respect for the sanctity of life has brought about. It is more disrespectful to those babies to forget that they existed, that their tiny bodies were torn apart. I think that the pictures at least show that we thought about them enough to get upset.

Bishop Henry has damaged the reputation of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and I wonder who has been whispering in his ear. I wonder if some post-abortive women have told him that campaign is too hurtful to them to bear. Not sure, but I have my suspicions.

A year ago, I attended an evening with three post-abortive women who were sharing their testimonies for the first time. One of the women related how she tried to get her husband to understand how she felt about her abortion. Just prior to this, we had had a brief discussion of the use of graphic imagery and all three women were completely against the use of photos of abortion. One even said that nothing could have dissuaded her from her abortion, and that a photo like that might have sent her even quicker to have the abortion over and done with. But when trying to tell her husband how she felt subsequently, she ended up telling him that it was if she had taken the toddler from next door, put a gun to his head and went Bam! Her husband said incredulously "that's how you feel? as if you blew someone's head off?" Then the woman told us that finally her husband "got it"; to which my unexpressed thought was "so you used graphic imagery and he finally understood what abortion is".

At the same time as receiving the Interim, I also got the newsletter from CCBR (Cdn Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform). I quote:

In the past eight years, we gave over 500 presentations to over 44,000 people at high schools, universities, churches, and conferences. Just in the past 12 months alone, we have given 104 presentations to over 14,000 people across Canada, the US, and even in England!




If any other pro-life group is having such an impact, I don't know about it. Not only is CCBR being persecuted by the society to which they make their public presentations, but they are also being attacked from within the pro-life movement itself. Could it be that there just might be an element of jealousy on the behalf of others at this? Or perhaps a sense of inadequacy that they aren’t doing as much? The fact that CCBR’s tactics generate such a strong reaction from fellow pro-lifers does not necessarily indicate that what they are doing is incorrect, but rather that what they are doing is so effective that the rest of us are feeling a little challenged by them.

Leishman suggests that, as with any publicity campaign, most corporations or political parties do market research on the potential effectiveness of the message they wish to communicate. He advises that the pro-life movement should do the same with regards to the use of graphic images.

I would ask if Leishman has read the testimonies that abound on the website of CCBR, Unmasking Choice. There are numerous statements from students who have attended a presentation by a representative from CCBR and those statements show a change of mind and attitude to abortion after hearing what Stephanie Gray or Jose Ruba had to say.

The vast majority of these presentations are given to teenagers, given at a time when they can be persuaded of the wrongness of abortion before they have need to resort to one. We will never know how many abortions have been prevented by the efforts of CCBR, but I would suspect that there are many. The effect that they are having upon the youth of Canada is something that cannot be measured, because it is happening on the prevention side, instead of in the aftermath of abortion.

I would suggest that those who get upset at graphic images should look at the reason they are upset. If they are upset because someone has shown them a horrific photo of an aborted fetus, they should wonder if they are more affected by the presenting of truth than by the reality of abortion itself. This is a case where we should be saying loud and clear - "don't shoot the messenger". Throughout history, many injustices and atrocities were made known to people precisely by the use of images.

I quote Stephanie Gray from CCBR on the issue of why so much objection to the use of graphic imagery:

Today there is no debate about the use of graphic imagery to convey injustices from the past; it is a “no-brainer.” People pore through history textbooks that contain graphic images; they flock to museums that show images of yesterday’s injustices; they line up to watch movies that convey the mistreatment of peoples by previous generations.

Why, then, is there a debate today about the use of abortion imagery? For the simple reason that such imagery shows a present atrocity not a past one. The guilt of historical crimes lies with our ancestors, not us. The guilt of present-day crimes lies with no one but ourselves. It is easy to say, “Shame on them.” It is difficult to admit, “Shame on us.”


Our reaction to graphic imagery should not be revulsion at the sight, but great sorrow that this happened to someone and we have not stopped it. I believe that this is the right reaction, because it is a reaction that will spur us to action to end the injustice done to the unborn.

Monday, June 8, 2009

A Man I Admire More than Most



Dr. Bernard Nathanson, now 83 years old, is still trying to do what he can for the pro-life movement. This is a man whom I deeply respect; if I had the resources, I would love to write his autobiography.

I think that part of his appeal to me is that he is a medical doctor and I am the daughter of a medical doctor who greatly resembled Nathanson in personality. Driven men, very smart men, mega-achievers; reading The Hand of God by Nathanson gave me insights into my own father. What drives a man who becomes a doctor but is not just the practical doctor, but one who thinks beyond the practice of medicine to morality? That was what Nathanson did and that was why he had his conversion. And my dad was also driven by morality, driven to write a book called Medicine and the State, driven to debate Tommy Douglas on national television, the political figure who brought the politics of socialized medicine to Canada. For the record, socialized medicine was something I used to think was good, but which I now question just as my father did.

This is a man for whom I have so much respect; he had the humility to confess before the world and before his peers, which might be harder, that he was wrong - wrong about abortion, the repeal of said laws he spent a great part of his life fighting for.

I highly recommend that you read anything that he has written, but especially the book The Hand of God. In this book, he even admits to having aborted his own child, with no remorse whatsoever, but simply as a utilitarian measure and one which he looked at with pride because he had done it well. And then years later, he confesses those terrible terrible mistakes of his past.

It takes a great man to confess that he was wrong; it takes a holy man to admit that he has sinned against God and against his fellow human beings. And Bernard Nathanson is both.

h/t Big Blue Wave

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Linda's hearing is tomorrow



Please pray for Linda Gibbons and those who will make a decision about her freedom tomorrow. Her hearing was supposed to be today, June 4, but has been changed to June 5. She is not allowed to attend it, why I don't know.

Linda has been in jail since before Christmas for failing to comply with an injunction that forbids her to step inside the 60 foot bubble zone outside the Scott abortuary in Toronto. That injunction was temporary, brought down in 1994, by the NDP government of Ontario. If you remember - it was that brief episode in Ontario history when Bob Rae practically ruined the province financially.

The injunction has stayed in place for 15 years now, and Linda has spent more than 5 of those years in jail because she does not obey it. They continue to press charges that skirt the issue of the injunction itself. She is charged with obstructing a police officer (which she has never done); she is charged with disturbing the peace (which she also has not done). In fact, Linda walks up and down in front of the clinic and quietly speaks to women who are entering for an abortion. She offers them literature that has alternatives to abortion and she tries peacefully to stop the women from entering to kill their babies.

Doesn't sound like much of a criminal to me. Yet, there she is in Vanier Centre for Women in Milton, Ontario along with other criminals. I even found a blog in England that was trying to get people to petition Amnesty International on Linda's behalf; Amnesty's reply was that they do not consider anti-abortionists to be victims of injustice.

Please keep Linda in mind and pray that true justice will be dispensed in her case. I will let you know as soon as I hear anything.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Let Me Introduce LeRoy Carhart



As mentioned in the previous post, LeRoy Carhart from Nebraska has stated that he will take over Tiller's abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Carhart is also an abortionist who specializes in late-term abortions.

Now, there are posts all over the internet defending Tiller as a man who did his "job" out of compassion for women. He even told Alveda King, an adamant pro-life advocate, that they were both working from compassion, just from different angles.

Well, I will print here testimony from LeRoy Carhart given in court in 1997. The reason for his testimony being required was because it had been found that the University of Nebraska Medical Center was conducting experiments using brain tissue from children aborted by Dr. Carhart. He was asked to answer certain questions regarding the techniques he used in his late-term abortions, using the D & X (dilation and extraction) technique.

What follows are excerpts from that testimony, with questions from an attorney and judge. I will let the testimony stand on its own,without further comment, so the reader can judge for herself the significance of what abortion really is and why most of the public was never given the opportunity to hear this testimony:

Are there times when you don't remove the fetus intact?
Carhart: Yes, sir.
Can you tell me about that- when that occurs?
Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes. An arm will spontaneously prolapse through the os... we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it's what they would call a transverse lie; so really you're looking at a side profile of a curved fetus. When the patient's cervix is already starting to contract, and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.
What do you do then?
Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.
How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get ahold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your countertraction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can't get the other leg out.
In that situation... are you.. when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?
Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.
At what point is the fetus ... does the fetus die during that process?
Carhart: I don't really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see the fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.
The Court: Counsel, for what it's worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D & E when fetal demise occurs.
Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D & E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.
Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know what the arm is, you know what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and puling down on it, or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out, and bring the fetus out. I don't know where this ... all the controversy about rotating the fetus comes from. I don't attempt to do that - just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the fetus.
At the time that you bring out the feet, in this example, is the fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Then what's the next step you do?
Carhart: I didn't mention it, I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.
What is the cord?
Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the fetus to the back of the fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I don't think anyone really knows.
Are there situations where you don't divide the cord?
Carhart: There are situations when I can't.
What are those?
Carhart: I just can't get to the cord. It's either high above the fetus and structures where you can't reach up that far. The instruments are only eleven inches long.
Let's take the situation where you haven't divided the cord because you couldn't, and you have begun to remove a living fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?
Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax come through the cavity. At that point, I would try ... you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with you finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the fetal ... the base of the fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.
What do you do next?
Carhart: And you can reach that, and that's where you would rupture the fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.
At what point in that process does fetal demise occur between intial remove ... removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or - I'm sorry - the decompressing of the skull?
Carhart: Well you know, again, this is where I'm not sure what fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. YOu can remove the cranial contents and the fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes; so is the fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don't think it has any brain function, so it's brain-dead at that point.
So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?
Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and they don't die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.


- testimony of Leroy Carhart, M.D., printed in ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments by Randy Alcorn, pp 208-210

I apologize if you have been offended by the gruesome account above, however I agree with Father Frank Pavone when he says "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion."

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Twisted Theology of Abortion




Theology and abortion in the same sentence? I wouldn't have believed it myself until someone sent me a link to the chaplaincy services that were offered at George Tiller's abortion clinic.

Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas

I quote from the site:

Spiritually, abortion is acceptable in ten of the world's religions and in Christianity many denominations affirm and uphold the right of a woman to make the choice of abortion.
The program offers individual counseling, group counseling and the celebration of spiritual sacraments such as baptism of the still born fetus and blessings for the aborted fetus.


To hear an audio clip of George Tiller outlining what his clinic offers, click here - this is completely perverse

"Baptism of the still born fetus" translates into a so-called blessing over the murdered baby. Simple question - "what would Jesus do?" There is no reason for any abortion before the crucified face of Jesus Christ. I have spoken to a number of women who have had abortions and regret them; I cannot imagine what a woman would have to deal with if she not only aborted her child, but then cloaked that reality in such lies.

By the way, I read previously that the charge for a late term abortion at Tiller's clinic was in the range of $5000 US. I guess his compassion didn't come cheap.

Father Frank Pavone writes about abortion being considered a sacrament in his book Ending Abortion:

If you stll doubt that abortion involves an explicit perversion of religion, read the cover story in the October 1993 issue of New Age Journal ("Sister Against Sister,", p.66). Author Brenda Peterson writes, "In her book Pagan Meditations, Ginette Paris describes abortion as an essentially religious act, a sacred sacrifice to Artemis. 'One aborts an impossible love,' she writes, 'not a hatred.' In her new book, The Sacrament of Abortion, Paris explains further that if we saw abortion as a sacred ritual, it would restore to the act a sense of the sanctity of life."


When we read statements like that, we have to remember what Scripture tells us is really going on:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground. - Ephesians 6:12-13


And how are we to prepare for this battle?

Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Tkae the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. - Ephesians 6:14-18


And breaking news: Nebraska-based abortionist LeRoy Carhart has announced that he will be taking over Tiller's clinic. An overview of Carhart's history reveals that this is a man who, while claiming to be a friend of Tiller and that is why he is continuing to operate his clinic, is actually someone who has seen an opportunity to continue making money off the killing of unborn children. His own clinic in Nebraska is facing difficulties (and looks like a dump as well) so all this talk about "compassion" for the women is really all about "cash" for the man willing to continue the murdering.

LeRoy Carhart to run Tiller's clinic

Monday, June 1, 2009

Advice from Father Frank Pavone to Pro-Lifers



Father Frank Pavone gives clear advice to pro-life people in the wake of George Tiller's murder. I have transcribed the entire text here so that you can copy and paste Father Frank's statements into your own correspondence. This man should be quoted liberally when facing the questions that we are going to face as pro-lifers.

I have been asked a number of times, "what do I think is the biggest danger of this event to the pro life movement; what is the greatest harm that will be done to our movement? Will it tar the movement's reputation?"
Certainly it does that.
"Will it cause the government to overreach in its efforts to stop the violence and clamp down on legitimate First Amendment activity - freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?"
Yes, it does do that too and it will but those aren't the biggest dangers.

The biggest danger right now to our movement, in the light of the killing of Dr. Tiller, is the enemy within. I'm talking about the fear, the self-doubt, the little voice inside of us that makes us feel guilty now for saying that abortion is murder, that might make some people feel guilty for being too aggressive in the effort to stop the killing of children, maybe make them afraid of going out in front of the abortion facilities to intervene peacefully for the lives of those children. The enemy within that would make some people believe what the other side is trying to say, that somehow we in the pro-life movement are responsible for this violence because of our violent rhetoric and because of our decades of efforts to expose the reality of what abortion is.

But the fact of the matter is, as the Gospel of Life written by Pope John Paul the Second says, that we have to look evil in the eye and call it by its proper name. Abortion is a holocaust, it is the killing of children, it is murder and it's happening on a massive scale precisely because so many of our fellow citizens are blind to it.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote the letter from the Birmingham jail in response to a group of clergy who told him that his tactics were too extreme, and that, in fact, he and his colleagues were responsible for fomenting violence. And he said that's a ridiculous argument; it's like saying the fact that someone possesses money is inciting the robber to commit an act of robbery; or that Jesus preaching that He was God is what provoked the crucifixion, that He is somehow responsible for that.

Brothers and sisters, we are not responsible for the violence that is done. We are a movement of non-violence and as Dr. King and, as Gandhi before him, taught and as we teach: non-violence is neither passivity nor obscurity. It does not sit back in the face of evil and it doesn't try to cover up the face of evil. Non-violence is a force that confronts violence in whatever form it takes. And it does so courageously and boldly and unapologetically.

So let the outcry continue to arise over the murder of George Tiller and let the outcry continue to arise against the murders that he committed and that other abortionists continue to commit. This is our pledge of non-violence and this is why our movement to protect life and to end violence in all its forms will succeed.