Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Footing Abortion Bill

A friend emailed me to say that my letter had been published in the Chronicle Herald. I had checked for a few days and then forgot about it. Glad to see that they published it today, in response to the woman who posted about her abortion last week.

 The April 23 opinion piece from an anonymous contributor, about the judgment she feels in the wake of an abortion raises the hackles of many people on both sides of this issue.
Given the annual number of abortions in Nova Scotia (the latest numbers show 2,125 in 2010), and given that the majority of abortions are performed for reasons of convenience, I would like to raise the issue of funding for abortions.
 Why should I pay for this woman’s abortion with my tax dollars? Abortion in this case was not medically necessary, but was sought because the woman wished to continue her education and did not think the time was right for her to have a child.
 The average abortion costs the taxpayer approximately $800. Unlike other medical procedures, this woman’s physical health would not have suffered if she had carried her child to term. Many studies indicate that her psychological health would actually have been better had she continued her pregnancy rather than opted for an abortion.
 For those who support abortion as a woman’s choice, the conundrum raises its head and asks for a logical answer to the question: “If abortion is truly a personal choice, how on Earth can it also be medically necessary?” — Faye Sonier, constitutional and human rights lawyer (

They also posted Paul Moore's letter in response to the same issue; Paul points out that pro-lifers are not judging those who have abortions, but are offering alternatives and help even to those who have chosen abortion.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Abortion Apathy

"Most people I know don’t care about murdered children.
 Sound harsh?"
 The other day, sitting around a coffee table with our cappuccinos and cupcakes, I was asked what I’d been doing before our child arrived. There was a hushed silence and the conversation moved quickly on to other topics when I explained how I’d worked in a crisis pregnancy centre, receiving calls from abortion seeking women and girls. When you mention the A-word amongst your good Christian friends or church folk, you’ve overstepped: there isn’t any place for a verbal exchange on the brutal reality of abortion amongst polite, Christian people. The gut feeling you get from your church is – if you’re going to go out and do something awkward and uncomfortable, then it should be evangelism. We’ll pray for you to go and do that in India or an African country; we’ll even send you some money now and then. But abortion’s too horrible to entertain as a thought, let alone to discuss or do anything about. Not only that, but working to end abortion is going beyond what Christians need to do.

This is a challenging blog post by Lydia Mead on the website

Thanks to  for posting this. 

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Entitled to sexual activity

Tuesday's edition of the Chronicle Herald in Halifax, NS features a letter from a woman who had an abortion. The editor kept her name secret to prevent any reprisals against this woman and so she should.

You can read the letter here.

The woman feels guilty and says that she felt she was living a double life while waiting to get her abortion appointment. As the title of the piece indicates, she is struggling with why she feels this guilt and shame and is appealing to the reader's empathy to agree with her that she shouldn't feel these things.

Guilt used to be the way one's conscience informed one that a wrong had been committed. But in today's universe of ethical relativism, guilt has no place. The choices one makes are simply that, choices, and they have no moral value to them.

The human heart says that this is not so.

This young woman' abortion is very recent. It will take some time before she faces the consequences of her choice. And it is true that for some women, they never do seem to have any consequences. 

However, the studies done on women who have had abortions indicate that the majority do have consequences. Suicidal thoughts are more common amongst post-abortive women; substance abuse is much higher (as much as 6 times); women often enter into serial relationships without commitment and this becomes a pattern of behaviour. There are many other after-effects of abortion, you can read more here.
I can tell you right off the bat that the father was someone I slept with one time. At that, we didn’t have much contact in my daily life. Nor was he the man I wanted to create a family with. And yes, we used a condom.

Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this statement? Why would this woman sleep with a man with whom she didn't have much contact otherwise? Is the sexual encounter simply an instinctual response to sexual needs that must be satisfied? I think that we human beings should act better than this; this type of behaviour puts us right down there with dogs and cats who can't control their impulses when they are in heat.

I am reminded of Jennifer Fulwiler's article some years ago when she realised why she had been pro-choice. The light-bulb moment came when she saw that her generation thought they were entitled to sexual activity and that the result, conceived babies, was a consequence they shouldn't even have to  consider. 

The contraceptive mentality results in being pro-choice. When you disassociate sex from babies, then it is a small step from using contraception to having it fail and then using abortion to clean up the "consequence" (in this case, a new human organism). 

Because of my deep distress at hearing of things like this, I found it really irritating when pro-lifers would refer to abortion as “killing babies.” Obviously, nobody around here is in favor of killing babies – and to imply that those of us who were pro-choice would advocate for that was an insult to the babies throughout history who actually were killed by their insane societies. We weren’t in favor of killing anything. We simply felt like women had the right to stop the growth process of a fetus if she faced an unwanted pregnancy. It was unfortunate, yes, because fetuses had potential to be babies one day. But that was a sacrifice that had to be made in the name of not making women slaves to the trauma of unwanted pregnancies.

 In sex ed class we learned not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. After we were done putting condoms on bananas, our teacher counseled us that we should carefully decide when we might be ready to have sex based on important concerns like whether or not we were in committed relationships, whether or not we had access to contraception, how our girlfriends or boyfriends treated us, whether we wanted to wait until marriage, etc. I do not recall hearing readiness to have a baby being part of a single discussion about deciding when to have sex, whether it was from teachers or parents or society in general. Not once.
 The message I’d heard loud and clear was that the purpose of sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential, almost to the point of being forgotten about altogether. This mindset laid the foundation of my views on abortion. Because I saw sex as being closed to the possibility to life by default, I thought of pregnancies that weren’t planned as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street — something totally unpredictable, undeserved, that happened to people living normal lives.

Unless we start to talk about sex that includes the possibility of conception, we are going to have more young women think life is terribly unfair to them when they get pregnant. We are going to have young men jumping in and out of relationships, fathering children they don't even know about, and considering sexual activity their right.

All actions have consequences. Unfortunately, the advent of the birth control pill has made western society think that sexual activity should have no consequences. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Try telling that to the woman who is mired in post-abortive depression or the woman who is told she is infertile because of the scar tissue left from an abortion. Or to the man or woman who has acquired an STI that is not curable by antibiotics, as so many of those infections are not.

The care-free days of the sexual liberation are drawing to a close. And both women and men need to realise that all actions have consequences, even those actions done while intoxicated or under the urge of the moment. We need to face up to these consequences and take responsibility for our own lives and for the lives of those we procreate. 

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Chickens and Eggs - let's get the science straight

Okay, I admit I am a Fox News devotee. First The Five, then Bret Baier, and of course Bill O'Reilly.
Usually Bill is not to be trumped, but Wednesday's cast showed that he does indeed have a weak spot.

In discussing this video with Martha McCallum, Bill suggested that if the eggs weren't used, we could be overrun with chickens. Both McCallum and O'Reilly made the collosal mistake of thinking that all eggs, if left alone, will hatch into chickens.
How many times have I heard this argument used by pro-choicers? And I am still stunned by their ignorance of basic biology. So let's set the record straight.
Chickens lay eggs every day or nearly every day. This is what their bodies do. In the human species, the female human releases one egg per month (two eggs would result in twins) and those eggs are shed through the monthly cycle of menstruation unless the egg is fertilized. In that case, the egg travels to the uterus and implants there, to be nourished and to grow into what we recognize as a baby.
The mistake that many people make is to think that all the eggs that chickens lay are fertilized. If they were, they would hatch into little chicks. But think about it:  how many chicken farms have roosters running around the hen house, mating with the hens and resulting in fertilized eggs?  not so many.
In fact, the chickens lay those eggs daily or every second day because when they release their eggs, we see them. We don't see the eggs that humans release and discard. So what happens internally with humans, happens externally with chickens.
I was stunned that Bill and Martha didn't know this. But rather, they talked about how we would be completely overrun with chickens if we didn't eat them for breakfast, make omelettes, use them for food. Gosh, we wouldn't be able to control the invasion of chickens that would occur unless we ate those little chicks in egg form.
The yolk is not a chick. Perhaps people think it is because it is yellow. But it's not a chick. It is simply the potential chicken if Mr. Rooster pays a visit. Which in most egg farms doesn't happen unless the farmer is trying to increase his number of laying hens.
As for the PETA video, what is the problem with using real eggs for an Easter egg hunt? They suggest that next year, Mrs. Obama use plastic eggs that can be recycled. Hasn't anyone told them about the waste that occurs in making plastic?  At least, real eggs, yolks and whites and shells can be eaten or recycled naturally. The same can't be said of plastic.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), an organization I will never ever support.

Making the Kermit Gosnell film

I regularly watch The Five on Fox News. Last night, they were talking about the new movie initiative to document the life of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion doctor who was charged with murdering born-alive babies after failed abortions, and who is now in prison for life.

Bob Beckel couldn't comprehend why no one in Hollywood would want to make this film. He said that it can't be because it is too gory, since they made a film about Ted Bundy who killed (and ate) 45 victims.

I wanted to shout at the television set, and have since tried to contact Beckel by email. I know why Hollywood doesn't make such a film and it should be bleedingly obvious to everyone who knows anything about abortion stats. I can only assume that perhaps Beckel doesn't know the stats, and that would explain why he doesn't "get it".

The Guttmacher Institute states that, by the age of 45, nearly half of all women will have had an abortion. That is pretty alarming stats from an institute associated with Planned Parenthood. It doesn't stand to gain anything by stating such alarming statistics.

Another source from Britain states that 28% of all women by age 45 will have had an abortion. I tend to think that statistic is more believable.

Whatever the stats, one can be sure that Hollywood personalities will have a higher rate of abortions than the rest of the population. After all, child bearing, weight gain, inability to film well on camera will all figure into whether women carry through a pregnancy. And the desire to excel in film (after all, that is why they are there) will affect how those women view an inconvenient pregnancy. You may say I don't have the figures to back this statement up, but I have no doubt that abortion is pretty common amongst film stars.

For every woman who aborts, there are other people involved. There is the father of the child to begin with, and there are relatives and friends who may or may not know about the abortion. So many people will have something to conceal when there is an abortion, even if they are not the one who had it. Kermit Gosnell was only in business because women wanted their pregnancies terminated. For every Gosnell who gets convicted of murder, there are all the patients he treated who were complicit in the act.

So to make a film that documents the horrific practice of Kermit Gosnell is not something Hollywood has any interest in. For one thing, it probably wouldn't make a lot of money. But the most important reason is that such a film would convict practically everyone of the murder of all those babies and of all their own babies.

It is one thing to show up the murderous life of someone like Ted Bundy, but quite another to make public the murderous acts of one-third to one-half of the female population.

If you are interested in seeing this documentary being made, you can contribute at the following link.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Frederiction Abortion Clinic to Close

One statement by this woman is overtly false. She states that the number of abortions has decreased since a decade ago, since two decades ago. That is just plain wrong. Stats Canada shows that the abortion rate in the last few years has remained fairly steady throughout the country. In 2010, New Brunswick recorded 1098 induced abortions; in 2009 the number was 1104; in 2008 it was 1096; in 2007 it was 1092; from 1970 to 2004 the number was 20,596 which means an average of 506 per year. Any cursory study of stats shows that abortions have increased since all restrictions on abortion were removed in Canada. People really do need to know that legalized abortion does increase the number of abortions; according to these records, the number of abortions has doubled since legalization. To say that the numbers have gone down since legalization is lying. This is an oft-repeated statement, that the same number of abortions will occur anyway, and that legalizing them makes them safe. Simply not true as anyone can find out easily.
For complete stats, view this link  

How does one communicate with a woman like this clinic manager?  She truly believes that she is doing a service for women by providing them with abortions. We, on the pro-life side, believe that this does untold damage to women.

Both sides are trying to help women. Where can we communicate with one another since we start from the same point, compassion for women?  But we end up at completely different places.

The Unborn have rights in Alabama

MONTGOMERY, ALA (Catholic Online) - On Good Friday, April 18, 20014, the Supreme Court of Alabama earned a special place in history.

In an 8-1 opinion entitled Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks, the Court ruled that the child in the womb has rights, like every other child.

Alabama has a criminal statute to protect children from chemical endangerment. This case involved a child in the womb, J.D., who was killed because her mother ingested cocaine while she was pregnant.

The mother pled guilty - and counsel argued that the statute did not apply to an unborn child. The Court disagreed, relying on its well reasoned opinion last year in a case entitled Ankro. v. State.

The Justices properly read the statute to include all children, no matter what age, in its intended protections, saying that "the plain meaning of the word 'child,' as that word is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child."
The Justices also held that "the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute."

The majority court took the time to address the horrors unleashed by the US Supreme Court in its Roe and Doe opinions. They also took on the insanity of the Casey opinion. The concurring opinions written by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker are outstanding!

Click here to read the quotes from some of the judges.

If this has really happened and the ruling stands, this means the wall of legally protected abortion will begin to crumble. 

Monday, April 21, 2014


Just couldn't resist. The print is small, it says

Good news! We have a full ship - 7.1 million passengers.


Friday, April 18, 2014

The Real Jesus

In this world, if Jesus came back today he'd most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally-friendly car with an "Arms Are For Hugging" sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.
 Instead of Jesus the wimp, Mel gives us Jesus the Redeemer. He died for our sins – ie, the "violent end" is the critical bit, not just an unfortunate misunderstanding cruelly cutting short a promising career in gentle teaching. The followers of Wimp Jesus seem to believe He died to license our sins – Jesus loves us for who we are so whatever's your bag is cool with Him.

Mark Steyn on the 10th anniversary of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

Happy Easter! 

Thursday, April 17, 2014

The woman who murdered her kids ............

A must-read article by Matt Walsh.

I wondered why so few news networks are covering this story. My husband said "well it's neither right or wrong, it doesn't get anyone arguing, it is just plain gross".

While those are all true, I think Matt has hit the nail on the head. The arguments for abortion all apply to what this woman did to her born-alive infants. And that story is just too horrific for networks to cover. It is all too close to abortion for anyone to be comfortable with reporting on it. 

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Double standard in Canada


Michael Coren made it plain that he disagrees with the methods of both Peter LaBarbera and Bill Whatcott, but he defends their right to "free speech".

Then he shows a clip of a feminist who rants and uses profanities to make her speech, but the police stand by and do nothing.

Double standard?  you betcha. Lefties and liberals get to say whatever they please, because it is politically correct. Right wing conservatives and traditionalists get arrested for stating their beliefs in public, and they do so without the vulgar language too. 

Remember that Ann Coulter was not allowed to speak at the University of Montreal last year, because the provost decided beforehand that her speech was "hate speech" and would incite violence.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Canada, land of the free

Peter LaBarbera, an American pro-family activist, was arrested in Saskatchewan after speaking at a pro-life conference on the campus of the University of Regina. It seems that he was arrested for simply stating that he supported Bill Whatcott, a known pro-life and anti-homosexual activist, who has been arrested on numerous occasions. Whatcott was arrested for displaying an anti-abortion sign and refusing to leave the campus. He has been acquitted previously for this same activity.

The two were led away in handcuffs and later released with a court date set in late May.

Congratulations Canada for showing that you are a defender of freedom and free speech. The tolerance police are jumping to the dictates of the gay lobby, who claim hate speech at every turn.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The Rise of Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents

Just giving the nod to a great article by Mollie Hemingway.

Long, but definitely worth the read.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this.
 Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater. Perhaps advocates of the change should have explained at some point, I don’t know, what singles out marriage as unique from other relationships under this new definition. What is marriage? That’s a good question to answer, particularly if you want to radically alter the one limiting factor that is present throughout all history.
 It’s in this sense that Eich’s most important political work was not making a paltry $1,000 donation in defense of natural marriage laws. It was in refusing to recant.
 Whether Eich and other dissidents will crack our thick, hardened crust remains to be seen. Perhaps there will need to be dozens, hundreds, thousands more dissidents losing their livelihoods, facing court cases, and dealing with social media rage mobs. But all of a sudden, the crust doesn’t seem nearly as impenetrable as it did last week.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Live birth abortion saves her own son's life

One evening a young girl was having a very difficult time.  I was there with the doctor.  I knew even though the doctor wrote this patient was 15 weeks, she was close to 30 weeks.  This happened quite a bit, but no one ever said anything.
When she delivered this tiny baby (it looked full term to me) she was actually alive and crying.  The doctor said to me, “Put it in the room and close the door.  Do not enter til the morning shift.”  I immediately took the crying baby and wrapped it up and laid it in a room.  I then immediately started calling hospitals around (against the doctor’s wishes) to find someone that would take it.  None around would take it cause they said it was not viable.  I spent many hours trying.  I just wanted to leave this place, but I knew I could not walk out and leave other patients without a charge nurse.  Til this day I hear this crying infant in my head.
This is the testimony of Marleen Golstein who worked in the abortion clinic of a hospital 30 years ago.
Her experience saved the life of her own son years later.
After a few years I got pregnant and went into labor at 20 weeks.  The doctors wanted me to terminate immediately due to my health. They stated that this baby would not be normal and I should try again.  I refused and was in the hospital, then was at home on complete bedrest.  I was not allowed to be alone..  I finally spiked a very high fever and was rushed into the hospital.  I was quite early still.. He was suppose to be born in November, I had him in July. -  a 2 pound 10 ounce little boy.  This was 30 years ago.  I was told that he was quite small and it would be touch and go to see what would happen. They also told me, “Do not expect too much. “  He was in the ISU for preemies for sometime.  He fought all the way and was perfectly normal.  Today my son is a healthy young man.  He is working on his 2nd Masters (MBA) and has a full time job.  He is aware that he is lucky to be alive, cause if I did not have the experience I did early on, he would not be here today.
 We need more testimonies of women like this to convince people of the tragedy of abortion. With more stories, there will be less "closing of doors" to shut out the babies' crying.


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

More Reaction to Signs in Halifax

The Signs for Life campaign got national coverage last night on SunNews TV.  Reporter Kris Sims spoke with Stephanie Potter of Signs for Life here in Halifax. When she tried to get the pro-choice side, no one at South House Women's Centre would speak with her. In fact, one woman came downstairs to tell the volunteer at the desk "that's Sun News, don't speak to them".

Kind of odd that they wouldn't want the opportunity to get their voice heard. But perhaps they can't face the kind of questions that Kris would ask, one of which being where do they get their funding?  Since South House is part of Dalhousie University, this would mean that every student gives a percentage of their student dues to pay for this service, and because it is primarily rolled out by the university, it is ultimately our taxes that are paying for this centre.

This could raise some questions for lots of people. If you don't support "reproductive choice for all genders" as the mandate of South House states, then perhaps you don't want your tax dollars going to support their ads either.

Sims will be following up on this question and it will be interesting to see what she finds out. 

Billboard paid for by donors to Signs for Life
This ad paid for by South House and the Halifax
Sexual Health Centre (government funded groups)

Monday, April 7, 2014

Legal, Safe and Rare - none of those

Just this past week, I read stories of two incidents at abortion clinics. The first recounted the death of Lakisha Wilson in Cleveland, Ohio. She had had a late term abortion, she was 22 years old and she died as she hemorrhaged from the procedure.

Today, ambulances and fire crews responded to a call at an abortion clinic in Boston; the 27-year-old page was unresponsive after the procedure; the first word is that she had an allergic reaction to the anaesthetic.

Incidents like this are much more common than you know. If it weren't for the actions of Operation Rescue, we might not ever hear about them.

They are able to gain access to the scripts of 911 calls, and this is how they discover where such incidents occur. The frequency is startling.

Just in case you thought abortion was safe, think again.

Same Sex Marriage and the Catholic Church

From Father Dwight Longenecker:

I don’t think I’m being alarmist or paranoid. Just reading the signs of the times. What will be most disappointing is that a huge number of Catholics will be in favor of same sex marriage. They are already, and when faithful Catholics are brought into the conflict they should not be surprised to find that they will be ostracized by their own. History shows that this is precisely what happens.
 In the meantime, while Jesus is watching and praying and sweating blood, too many of the disciples are sleeping. Happily satiated by our materialistic lifestyle, we’re dozing after our big dinner and are totally unaware of the storm clouds gathering.
 The underlying problem is the complete unawareness on the part of many Catholics that there is any conflict at all between the way of the world and the way of the cross. In comfortable Christian America they haven’t dreamed that to be a Christian involves any sort of clash with the surrounding culture.......
 How the church will handle this approaching challenge is going to be fascinating and heartbreaking to behold.

Canada made same-sex marriage legal in 2005, which just goes to show how little real activity goes on in this country. Even a controversial issue like this just passes without much to-do, and it is all just swept under the rug like so many other important issues.

I am very grateful that our neighbours to the south have the guts to fight and fight hard about things that matter. Here in the nanny state, we have all been lulled to sleep. After all, the government assures us that we will be taken care of from cradle to grave, so what is there to be upset about?

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Same sex marriage and massacre of Christians

African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested. Speaking on an LBC phone in, Justin Welby said he had stood by a mass grave in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been massacred by neighbours who had justified the atrocity by saying: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians."
 "I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," Welby said. If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world."

I read this on Father Dwight Longenecker's blog yesterday and thought it was important and should be reposted.

This is serious stuff; what we do in the west affects other countries. And certainly the vicious actions of Muslims in certain countries towards Christian believers is something we should all be aware of and feel some responsibility for.

Same-sex marriage is accepted now by a full half of the American population. Here in Canada, same sex marriage was made legal in 2005. However, given our rather small and wide-spread population, it hasn't had the same effect upon Canadian society that its legalization will upon the American states.

Recent commotions over acceptance of same-sex marriage (e.g. the firing of Brendan Eich from Mozilla for having given $1000 to California's Proposition 8) show the complete ignorance of gay rights supporters for what their campaign is going to do to people worldwide. Their fierce bullying of those who support traditional marriage comes at a cost to people they don't even think about.

As Matt Walsh says in his blog
You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been.
Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love; only reproduction. I love in many ways and in many directions. But, alas, only one of these loves can (or should) result in the creation of a biological family. Thus, this love carries with it a certain distinction and a certain responsibility.

Matt is right; marriage is about the family, and that is one man, one woman and their offspring.

The push for gay rights is not the same as the push for civil rights, although supporters claim that it is. Civil rights in America did not lead to massacres in Africa. But the wholesale acceptance of same-sex marriage (and the Anglican church's acceptance would signify this in England) will lead to massacres elsewhere. And consciences should be bothered by that.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Film about Kermit Gosnell

Fox News Contributor Kirsten Powers appeared on FNC’s “The Kelly File” April 1 to discuss how Kickstarter, a crowdfunding site, refused independent filmmaker Phelim McAleer and wife Ann McElhinney permission to fundraise for their new project: the Gosnell Movie. Powers explained that while a grand jury report accused abortionist Kermit Gosnell of “killing hundreds of babies,” Kickstarter only allowed McAleer’s Hat Tip Productions an account to fundraise “if they would remove references to babies being stabbed to death” in the project description. As a result, the husband-wife team turned to site Indiegogo to raise money from the public. 

I hope that they are successful in doing this. Perhaps the only way to reach the general public is through movies, because the theatre seems to have replaced church for many people. They go to the cinema to be thrilled, uplifted, energized - in short, they now go to see films for the very reasons they used to go to church.

If that is the case, then movies should be used to convey the truth to people.

Support this effort if you are able.  Click on the link above to donate. 

Also, this is an issue that has really captured the attention of Kirsten Powers. Last year, she called out her fellow liberal journalists for not covering the Gosnell trial and here she is now advocating for the people who wish to disclose the truth about this man. Kirsten recently became a Christian and I think it is hard for her in the world she lives in. It would be much easier if she were a Republican, but she is a Democrat and real solid Christians must find it increasingly difficult to maintain their beliefs amongst the progressive liberals. 

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Movies - very selective here

Not being a movie-goer, I am very very selective about which movies I want to spend my money, and even more importantly, my time on.

So the recent movies that have come out are getting mixed reviews. Many people have asked me if I have seen either Son of God or Noah and I just shake my head and don't say anything further. What's the point of arguing about things that don't even bother most people?

I really don't wish to view anything that is produced by Roma Downey. I tolerated her on Touched by an Angel, but frankly I have difficulty with people whose public lives don't seem to be in sync with their private lives. And when I read that Downey was married to her current husband in a ceremony that was officiated by co-star Della Reese, I lost complete interest in seeing Son of God. I really do think that Downey has found a vehicle for over-dramatizing her aspirations on the screen; perhaps making super-religious films makes her feel good (or at least flatters her ego by letting her play Mary in all the films), but I just can't be bothered to give any financial support to such endeavours. There are much better things to do with my time and my money. Not to mention the fact that the character of Jesus looks completely mis-cast; who can believe a Jesus with bedroom eyes?

As for the film Noah, I think it is a grand slam of a film meant to wow audiences which it is doing, but as for being truthful to the story of Noah, you can forget it. Not only is it untruthful, it is actually a reversal of truth from what I have read. Again, another waste of time and money as far as I am concerned.

However, I am holding out for God's Not Dead. Now this is a film that I really do want to see. In the film, a professor tells his class that they must all agree that God is dead as the underlying foundation for his philosophy course; only one student cannot comply. He is told that he must present over the course of the term, arguments to convince the professor that God is not dead, and at the end of term, engage in a debate with the professor in front of the class. If he does not succeed in doing this, he fails the course.

A review of this film and an interview with the two men who produced the film have piqued my interest, and I think this is a film worth spending both time and money on.

With almost no one in his corner, Josh wonders if he can really fight for what he believes. Can he actually prove the existence of God? Wouldn't it just be easier just to write "God Is Dead" and put the whole incident behind him? GOD'S NOT DEAD weaves together multiple stories of faith, doubt and disbelief, culminating in a dramatic call to action. The film will educate, entertain, and inspire moviegoers to explore what they really believe about God, igniting important conversations and life-changing decisions.
The interview with the producers was even more intriguing. These are guys with faith who want to produce something that challenges the culture, and for that, they deserve lots of support.

Hartline: I think a faithful Christian, or anyone of faith, feels a lot has changed in the last five or six years. People of faith are often mocked or belittled in popular culture, and the faithful are accused of all sorts of bigotry and ignorance. We are told to get with the times, as if our consciences could really leave the truth behind. It seems the movie is addressing that underlying feeling in the faith community.

Solomon and Konzelman: Yes, that's definitely the nerve that's been touched. Secular humanists insist that Christians in general — and Catholics in particular — are supposed to leave their belief system at home when it comes to matters in the public sphere. So according to the rules they propose, their belief system is allowable . . . and ours isn't. Which is a deliberate attempt to subvert the whole democratic process. As someone else pointed out: Democracy is supposed to be about more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

I didn't see that the film is scheduled to come to Canada, at least we were not mentioned in the list of viewings in the article. So I may have to wait for it to come out in DVD, but if you get a chance to see it, please do and let me know what you think.