Category Archives: legal issues

DefendGirls

by Kate

DefendGirls is a new campaign to provide information and raise awareness about sex-selective abortion. I recommend taking a look at the DefendGirls Facebook page or at the website defendgirls.ca. The site offers information about the issue and about Motion 408, the motion recently filed in the House of Commons asking parliamentarians to condemn sex-selective abortions as discrimination against girls. The site also provides suggestions and links for further action and has a very interesting blog. DefendGirls stickers, postcards, business cards and t-shirts can be purchased through the NCLN website.

DefendGirls

 

Advertisements

uOSFL Hosts MP Stephen Woodworth: Discussion on Motion 312

Parliament may not want to discuss the hot topic of when life begins, but we do!

Come join us on Monday, December 3rd at 7 PM in Montpetit 202 (125 University Private) to welcome MP Stephen Woodworth to the University of Ottawa for a public lecture and discussion.

For those who may not know, MP Stephen Woodworth’s Motion 312 was recently voted down in Parliament. This motion proposed that the House of Commons establish a committee to examine the scientific evidence as to when human life begins, and to report back as to the human rights implications of its findings.

You can find details of this motion here: http://www.stephenwoodworth.ca/canadas-400-year-old-definition-of-human-being/motion-312This event is hosted by the University of Ottawa Students for Life, your pro-life club on campus. For more information, please see our Facebook event and follow us on Twitter at @uosfl_epvuo.

To Care or to Kill?

by Kelden Formosa

On Friday, the BC Supreme Court moved Canada one step closer to legalized euthanasia.

But legalizing euthanasia won’t solve the real problems.

Instead of making it easier to kill the weak and the vulnerable, we should recognize all human beings as having dignity and value and start making serious efforts to ensure their needs are provided for.

That means making serious investments in palliative care and strengthening the institutions of the Culture of Life.

To learn more, or to take action, please visit our friends at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and check out their press release.

Legalized Abortion: Harm Reduction or Just Harm?

by James Richmond

I somewhat recently attended a debate hosted by uOttawa Students for Life in mid-November. At this debate, the pro-choice debater, Jovan Morales, posed an often used argument which presents abortion as a ‘harm-reduction’ solution. Essentially, this position proposes that without legalized abortion, women will seek ‘back-alley abortions’ in non-sterile environments where the possibility of infection and maternal mortality is much higher.

There are a number of issues with this argument, and I will briefly address two of them. The first is that I see this approach as merely a band-aid solution. Legalizing abortions to give women access to sterile facilities with skilled physicians does not address what led the women to seek abortion in the first place: Was it a boyfriend who does not wish to deal with the consequences of his actions? Parents who want to avoid family embarrassment? The terrible trauma of rape? The woman who does not want her life to be disrupted by having a child? A lack of support from family and friends? In these situations, I believe there is a cultural problem rather than a medical one. Western culture is self-centric in that we place utmost importance on our personal choices: What is it I want to do? How does this affect me? What about asking what exactly is at stake when it comes to abortion, and more precisely who? We know beyond a shadow of scientific doubt that the preborn are human beings and as such their lives must be protected along with their mothers’.

Furthermore, if the foundation of the argument is based on the health of the mother, institutionalized abortion is no guarantee of even a decrease in maternal mortality rates. A study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) titled “Trends in Maternal Mortality” discovered that from 1990 to 2008, after the legalization of abortion, the Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) of Canada increased by 94 percent (28) and the MMR of the United States increased 96 percent (32). Legalized abortion is clearly no panacea for women’s health.

The ‘harm-reduction’ argument is also used to push for abortion clinics in developing countries. The National Right to Life group published an article which discusses the myth proposed above by Mr. Morales. I encourage you to read the short document, “Why legalized abortion is not good for women’s health.”

Sliding Down the Slippery Slope

by Theresa Stephenson

Last week, it was reported that a woman who killed her newborn baby would receive no jail time.

She kept her pregnancy hidden from her parents and gave birth in their home. She then strangled her son with her underwear and threw his body over the fence into the neighbour’s yard. Clearly, this is murder. Clearly…or is it? In the opinion of an Alberta judge, this merely amounts to a fourth-trimester abortion:

The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes.

The week before that baby was born, the mother could have legally had an abortion in Canada. In the womb, outside the womb – what difference does it make?

A friend paralleled this story with the anecdote of a frog being boiled alive. If you put a frog in boiling water it will immediately jump out. However, if you place it in cold water and slowly increase the temperature, it will not notice the danger and it will be cooked to death.

Canada, I think our moral relativism is killing us.

Save Baby Joseph!

by Elizabeth Tanguay

Joseph Maraachli is a one-year-old baby who depends on a ventilator to live. He is dying of an undiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder. His parents, who lost a previous child to a similar disease, want the doctors to perform a tracheotomy, like they did for their daughter, to enable them to care for their dying son at home. The hospital refused and has instead tried to force the parents to consent to removing the ventilator. The family has fought back courageously, and right now they are trying to get baby Joseph transferred to another hospital where he will get the treatment he needs.

As a nursing student, it seems to me that the parents shouldn’t have to fight to try and provide comfort care for their baby so he can die with them at home. The doctor said that the tracheotomy would be risky and that Joseph would suffer; however, in front of the tribunal, the doctor stated that Joseph couldn’t feel pain and was in a permanent vegetative state; he didn’t respond to stimuli. However, as this video shows, Joseph is not vegetative, as he is moving to his parents’ stimuli. I can’t help asking myself: what is the hidden agenda here? Why can’t the relatively simple and humane request of the parents be granted? They are, after all, the first decision-makers for treatment for this baby. While I don’t have all the medical facts of the case, as a sister, if my little brother were dying and there was nothing more the hospital could do for him, and there was a way to make him comfortable at home, I would want that. The Maraachlis aren’t asking for a miracle: they are asking for good palliative care. If you are interested in supporting the Maraachlis as they go through this ordeal, please join the “Save Baby Joseph” Facebook group or go to any of the articles linked to here and scroll down to see how you can help.

Follow the rest of story here, here and here.

Marking Anniversaries

by Theresa Stephenson and Marissa Poisson

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that legalized abortion.  For Canada, January 28 will be the 23rd anniversary of a similar case, R. v. Morgentaler, in which our Supreme Court struck down the abortion law and left a legal vacuum. The Canadian case was brought by three abortionists, while the American suit was filed on behalf of a woman named Norma McCorvey, alias “Jane Roe.” Her view on abortion may surprise you:

Those two landmark cases in North American history have left a legacy of death and deception. Millions of babies have been killed in clinics and hospitals, and millions of post-abortive women have suffered the aftermath of their child’s death. When we sanction ending a preborn child’s life at any point during pregnancy, are Kermit Gosnell’s crimes not the logical extension of our society’s attitude?

Can two supposed bastions of human rights not do better in terms of respecting the most fundamental of them all? Just imagine how many of our classmates, friends and family members are not with us today because of abortion. It’s up to all of us to work towards making abortion a thing of the past.