Friday, August 31, 2012

Abortion after rape, or incest, or ....

Michael Coren said that the reason pro-choicers ask the question "what about abortion in the case of rape?" is because their motive is to paint pro-lifers as extreme.

The stats show that less than 3% of pregnancies are the result of rape or incest. The fact that the abortion/rape question is brought up at the beginning of all discussions on abortion shows that the person defending abortion is willing to make laws on the basis of hard cases. And it is well known that hard cases do not make for good law.

Pro-choice advocates often divert attention from the vast majority of abortions by focusing on rape because of its inherent (and well-deserved) sympathy factor. Their frequent references to rape during discussions of the abortion issue leaves the false impression that pregnancy due to rape is common. - Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments

The next time someone asks you if you would deny abortion to a rape victim, why not turn the question around. Say to them "okay, I will grant you the 2 or 3% of exceptions, if you are willing to work with me to protect the other 97% of cases."

They never will. And that proves that they are not out to debate the question of abortion at all; they simply want to show pro-lifers to be extreme, uncompromising, and uncompassionate. When the question is turned back to them, you will find out who has the extreme position.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012


Watching the Republican convention last night on both Fox and CNN networks, I wish I was an American! There is an excitement and a vitality on the other side of the border that is simply lacking here in Canada.

A few weeks ago, I listened to a woman on the radio who is working at the Canadian embassy in Washington and she said that there are two things she does not "get" about Americans. One is their obsession with the right to bear arms (well I don't get that either), and the other is their emphasis on religious belief. Unbelievable! That a woman working as a correspondent in the US does not understand the history of the United States. Didn't she do her homework? Or is she just lulled into that religious neutral zone that most Canadians inhabit? Does she actually think that zone of apathy is preferable to vibrant faith?

When I heard Governor Nikki Haley speaking about her parents' coming to America as Indian immigrants and starting their own business, then Governor Rick Santorum speaking of his immigrant background, followed by Governor Chris Christie speaking of his Irish/Italian immigrant background, I heard the pride in their voices. A pride that they came from people who knew the value of a country like the US, where someone can build their life from the ground up if they are willing to work hard. Every opportunity is there. That is why the US has always been the #1 destination for immigrants from around the world.

The emphasis on working hard, on defending personal freedom, on the sanctity of life when Santorum spoke of his daughter and said he was so glad there was one party in the US that defended the right to life - you would never hear a Canadian politician speak like this. Instead they would speak of what the government should and will do for the citizens; these Americans spoke of what the citizens should and will do for the country.

What a difference! Americans, be proud of your country and defend it with all your might. Because there is no other country like yours. Boy, am I jealous!

Polygamy next

Brazil is not the first to legalize a polygamous union--a similar female-male-female trio was recognized in the Netherlands in 2005--but the new union has added fuel to an international debate about the possible legal consequences of recognizing gay unions or marriages on the basis of equal rights or equal protection of the law.

Defenders of traditional marriage have always said that the acceptance of same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy; and surely there is no obstacle as far as the law goes.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Let's have the debate

Margaret Somerville, in an eloquent article , makes the case for the debate Canada needs.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Lukewarm on Abortion

We know how to end abortion, and we know it’s not easy. However, what makes it more difficult is when Christian churches that have traditionally stood up against injustice and have an imminent duty to do so now are more likely to tell someone how they can be forgiven for aborting their children than they are to warn them against killing babies in the first place. - Jonathan van Maren from Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform

Remember what Scripture says about being lukewarm.

'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. - Rev. 3:16

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Father Pavone Buries 9 Children

On Friday, August 3, 2012, Fr. Frank Pavone buried 9 children who died in the womb. The burial took place on Staten Island, at Resurrection Cemetery, a cemetery of the Archdiocese of New York.

h/t Love Undefiled

I have never heard of any funeral in Canada for an aborted baby. It would certainly bring the reality of abortion home to people if there were. In every abortion, someone dies.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Chick-Fil-A and what it signifies

Especially without any central organizer or major media promotion, the numbers were staggering, and broadly replicated across the country. If a protest warrants a story, this event deserves a Pulitzer-nominated multi-part investigative series.

It wasn’t a forum about the First Amendment, Cathy’s marriage views, or even political bullying. Whatever their motivation, the crowd arrived as a smiling, hungry lunch and dinner crew. It was a massive show of implicit support and protest, for reasons that deserve examination.

My table included a friend who supports civil unions, one for gay marriage, and one who thinks government should get out of the marriage business, letting people and churches make their own agreeable arrangements. We didn’t discuss the fourth person’s view, or anyone else’s that day, because lunch was don’t ask don’t tell.

It’s clear many diners intended to rebuke bullying politicians and the un-American idea that approved political views are required for permission to be in business. Does this resentment go further, and reflect anger at transgressed lines between private and public management, corporate and government bedfellows sharing money, policies, and favors? Is that resentment building toward a November eruptian?

Another strong positive is rejection of a vicious double standard: One side airs views through a respectful media, while others get vilified for different opinions. It’s breathtaking that liberals seek to redefine fundamental cultural concepts and muzzle the opposition; those who question or disagree should be attacked and cowed into silence, even while they speak for majority opinion. That happened with California’s ballot measure on marriage, as more than one financial supporter was hounded from high profile jobs. Wednesday was a salutary fist at that ugly trend.
Shawn Mitchell on

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Deficit, Debt and GDP

Usually I steer clear of economics, because I simply don't understand them. But a report on SunNewsTV on Thursday night was rather shocking. The Ontario deficit for 2012 is equal to the deficit of the state of California. Most of us know that California is in trouble. And even very left-leaning governor Jerry Brown is freezing wages and even making 5% cuts in some wages to reduce costs.

Ontario has one-third the population of California, but it has an equal annual debt. I hear the words "deficit" and "debt" thrown around and knew there must be a difference. Because states and provinces talk about balancing their "deficit" but they still remain in "debt". Do the difficulties that Ontario is facing really affect the rest of the country? Well I would think so, since Ontario accounts for one-third of the Canadian economy.

The deficit is the difference between how much the federal government spends and how much it collects in one year. If the government “earns” $2 trillion in taxes in one year, but spends $3 trillion, that’s a deficit of $1 trillion. In order to pay for the difference, the government has to borrow money from itself, American citizens, foreign countries, and other sources.
The national debt, on the other hand, is the total amount we owe. Every year that we borrow more money, the debt grows larger.
The difference between the deficit and the debt is especially important because when politicians talk about reducing the deficit, all that really means is that our debt isn’t growing as fast. It does not mean we’re getting out of debt.
In more personal terms: If you have an income of $50,000 per year, and you spend $60,000, that’s a deficit of $10,000. You would need to borrow that $10,000 from someone, maybe with a credit card or a home equity loan. If you reduce your spending the following year, to $55,000, you have “halved the deficit”, but you’re still spending $5,000 more than you’re earning, and going further and further into debt. After two years, despite halving your “deficit spending,” you’re $15,000 in debt. -

So what is the Premier of Ontario doing about the deficit? Well not too much, it seems. But these things catch up to you and I think Dalton McGuinty may be facing an election pretty soon. The only concern I have is that the Conservative party in Ontario is weak, because they really aren't conservative enough, and the NDP are busy making inroads in that province. Now the NDP are not known for being financially wise, so Tim Hudak had better get his act together.

A couple of weeks ago, we had a small party here of graduate students who were toasting a young man who just successfully defended his Masters thesis. One of the guests was a young post-doctoral student from Arkansas, doing some research here at Dalhousie University. We got into a little debate about American politics. He had claimed that he was a real red-neck, and I assumed he meant that he was a Republican, but that was certainly not the case. He went on the offense about Obama. I didn't have facts and figures on hand to debate with him, as he claimed that Obama's policies were working and that his plan for the economy was better than Mitt Romney's.

My husband decided to look up some stats on the US economy. The figures are shocking. Everyone knows that the US debt is somewhere around 16 trillion dollars; the problem is that no one really knows what a trillion is. We just kind of think "well it's a lot more than a billion" but we don't know how much more it is. A trillion is a million million or one thousand billion. Check this link if you want to see it in pictures.

Something that is talked about in economics is the ratio of GDP to debt. Since the GDP is gross domestic product, it tells us how much wealth a state or country actually has. The two are measured against each other because it gives a quick picture of the ability of a country to service its debt.

One of the things this fellow from Arkansas said was that the US debt was about 8% of the GDP. My husband, being the smart fellow he is, knew that wasn't right and he said it was closer to 20%. The next morning he checked some sites to see what it actually was and imagine his shock when he learned that US debt actually exceeds GDP!

GDP is a measure of the total size and output of the economy. One measure of the debt burden is its size relative to GDP. In the 2007 fiscal year, U.S. federal debt held by the public was approximately $5 trillion (36.8 percent of GDP) and total debt was $9 trillion (65.5 percent of GDP).[41] Debt held by the public represents money owed to those holding government securities such as Treasury bills and bonds. Total debt includes intra-governmental debt, which includes amounts owed to the Social Security Trust Funds (about $2.2 trillion in FY 2007)[42] and Civil Service Retirement Funds. By August 2008, the total debt was $9.6 trillion.[43]

Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will nearly double in dollar terms between 2008 and 2015 and will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.[44] Multiple government sources including the current and previous presidents, the GAO, Treasury Department, and CBO have said the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path.[45] However, ahead of predictions, total national debt reached 100% by the third quarter of 2011.[46] If counted using the total public debt outstanding over the annual GDP in chained 2005 dollars, the ratio reached 115% on Feb. 2012.[47]
- Wikipedia: US public debt measured relsative to GDP

These figures of deficit and debt are thrown around and it is difficult to follow the seriousness of what is being discussed. But when you find out that the debt is greater than the ability to pay that debt, any person with half a brain knows that means trouble.

Having experienced financial difficulty in our own lives, and having credit card debt that equaled our monthly mortgage payment, we knew that we could not go on for long like that. As one real estate agent said to us "one hiccup in the economy and you guys are toast". At least he was honest, others weren't so truthful. He saved us from trying to buy a house we simply could not afford. In economic terms, we were living with a deficit that had built into a debt that was unsustainable. You can carry a debt for one year (that would be a "deficit") if you have a plan to pay it down, but if you carry it for much longer, then you are in "debt" which is much harder to get out of.

Too bad the Arkansas fellow isn't here now, because he needs to know these facts. It might change one Democrat voter to Republican this November. As for the poor folks in Ontario, the good news is that McGuinty won't be around for much longer. I hope that Ontarians are smart enough to prevent the NDP from moving in to fill the vacuum.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

2016 The Movie

This movie is now showing in select theaters in the US. The list shows places in Texas, Tennessee, Montana and Arkansas. Check the list and go if you can.

2016 The Movie

For an early review of the film, click here
2016: Obama's America by Christian Toto

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Real Nuns eat Chick-Fil-A

Way to go, Sisters!

Father Frank Pavone Asks for Help

Glad to see that Father Frank is still doing what he does best: exposing the evil of abortion to the citizens of America.

Conflicts in Canada's Pro-Life Community

The Canadian pro-life history seems to be fraught with division and conflict. Once again, conflict threatens to prevent any progress being made.

This time, the conflict is over the issue of legislation to protect the unborn based on gestational limits. In other words, should we support legislation that would prohibit abortions past a certain age, for instance, 24 weeks?

Campaign Life Coalition, which is the dominant pro-life group in the country, is adamantly against supporting this type of incremental legislation. Their reasoning is that this means one is actually stating that early abortion is therefore alright. They are very firm in their position and they maintain that gestational legislation is a compromise with evil.

Priests for Life Canada were asked to give their comment on this issue. They issued a press release last week that states:

Priests for Life Canada supports progressively, restrictive, and realistically attainable political goals as laid out by Blessed John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (paragraph 73) to save preborn children in a hostile parliamentary environment. As Blessed John Paul II clearly states: “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Therefore, Priests for Life Canada believes it is necessary to recognize that such activity and goals are morally sound, theologically approved and pragmatically achievable.

To counter this statement, LifeSiteNews has printed an interview with John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn in the UK. Smeaton regrets that he supported such incremental legislation and he said the effect has actually proven to be worse; the number of late term abortions has increased since such legislation was passed, since doctors simply seek exceptions to the law and work around such legislation. Whether that increase in abortions is due to the law or whether the number of late-term abortions would have increased anyway in the past twenty years cannot be determined. I suspect that the changes in British society, increasing promiscuity amongst all age groups, the growing intolerance of birth defects, the immigration to the UK of cultures that seek sex-selective abortions are all factors that would affect the increase. The incremental legislation may have had some effect, but I hardly think the blame can be attributed entirely to one factor.

I read a joke recently which seems apropos:
An ardent pro-lifer died and arrived at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asked them if they had saved any babies from abortion during their time on earth. The person replied, "no I didn't manage to save any babies, but I didn't compromise my principles."

While the issue cannot be reduced to single-line humour, there is an irony there that is unavoidable. Many pro-life people that I have met refuse to work with each other because they have disagreements on principle. The result is that the pro-life community is fractured and that disunity results in weakness. As Abby Johnson said, she was stunned when she became pro-life to find out how divided people were. She said the other side, the pro-choice side, are very strong and united and that is why they can have such an effect upon the culture. It is time that we pro-lifers recognize that some of our differences have to be dispensed with and that we have to keep our eyes on the goal, which is to save lives.

As a good priest just wrote to me

Following the Church's teaching one tries to do the good that one can when it is possible. If one can do something to save unborn children's lives in the 3rd trimester one does that and then continues to work on saving them in the first two trimesters.

Black Pastors Oppose Obama

“The time has come for a broad-based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women,” said Owens, in an interview Tuesday after the launch event at the National Press Club. “I am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road.”

At the press conference, Owens was joined by five other black regional pastors and said there were 3,742 African-American pastors on board for the anti-Obama campaign.

In a fiery Tuesday press conference at the press club, Owens said Obama was taking the black vote for granted and decried the idea of similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, an assertion made by the NAACP following Obama’s same-sex marriage support.

At the press conference, Owens said that Obama’s support of same-sex marriage tantamount to supporting child molestation.

“If you watch the men who have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note that all of them will say that they were molested as a child…” Owens said. “For the president to condone this type of thing is irresponsible.”

Dan Merica at CNN blogs

Obama is simply following political expediency. Since he reasoned that the gay/lesbian vote was worth currying, he has thrown in his campaign with them. I hope he is proved wrong on this one.