Tag Archives: abortion politics

Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen

by Elizabeth Tanguay

As shocking as this may seem, yes, some do survive abortion. See these two amazing videos on her story:

Amazing story.  Personally, I don’t see why women want to have the right to be so abused in this fashion. We are worth so much more.



Unsafe, Legal and Wrong

by Marissa Poisson

An Ontario judge ruled on Tuesday that Criminal Code laws against keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution violated women’s Charter rights to freedom of expression and security of the person. (Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but many of the activities associated with it are. Both the federal and provincial governments announced they will appeal the decision.)

What does this have to do with abortion? Firstly, I would say that proponents of prostitution and abortion have in common the idea that legalizing something dangerous makes it safe. Prostitution may become less hidden if the decision survives the appeals, but exploitation does not become safe by virtue of being legal. Similarly, legalized abortion does not change the nature of the procedure. It may be done in government-funded clinics now, but it is still chemically toxic or physically invasive for the woman undergoing it and deadly for her child.

Secondly, I’ve never met a little girl who says she wants to be a prostitute or have an abortion when she grows up. Women are driven to these things by desperation. A few vocal women may claim to be thriving as prostitutes, but most are addicted to drugs, undereducated and abused, and some are victims of human trafficking. Abortion, for its part, is sometimes used to cover up sexual abuse of minors and illicit relationships, and many women feel pressured to abort by outside expectations.

Thirdly, legal is not synonymous with moral. We don’t have to look far in history to find examples of this. Rulings on abortion and prostitution have been based on security of the person, but the safest thing would be for people to stay far away from both. We need to work to eliminate the conditions that lead women to these supposed choices because no legal ruling can make right what is inherently wrong.

What’s the Difference?

by Reita S.

We live in a mixed up world. We always have. There has always been evil in this world. There always will be. But it seems to me that a large part of this evil comes from losing track of the important things in this life.

When people begin to think that their own socio-economic betterment comes above justice for their fellows, then oppression follows. When people forget that religion is meant to bring a message of peace and love, they force it on others with threats and violence. When people forget they were not destined to be kings of all the rest of the earth, then colonialism and slavery result.

Today, we think we have learned those lessons. Today, we don’t believe that anymore. (Or so we tell ourselves.) In Utah, a man faces years in prison over the (accidental) death of a kitten. Animal activist leagues are pushing for a jail term. One activist said, “I think people tend to not think of them [cats] as beings that have a soul and a nervous system. They can still feel.”

So, tell me what kind of society we are that wants to send a man to jail for the accidental death of a cat, but will applaud at the ‘woman’s right to choose’? Don’t people realise that the woman has the right to choose whether or not to kill her child?

How is it that the demonstrated living nature, genetic uniqueness, and ability to feel pain of the unborn child is brushed aside, yet the cat’s ‘soul and nervous system’ should be a compelling argument?

I don’t know why there are thousands of children languishing in inadequate foster homes and orphanages, but people will leave billions of dollars to dog shelters.

I believe strongly in responsible pet ownership. I believe in caring for animals. But at the end of the day, why is it okay to kill a human child at any point of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, but a criminal act to harm a cat or dog? Why is the human child of such little significance? Can someone tell me the difference?

The 10 lies we tell (supposedly)

by Elizabeth Tanguay

As I was trying to find the uOSFL group on Parliament Hill while at the March for Life, pro-choicers were handing out pamphlets entitled, “10 Lies that Anti-Choice groups are telling you about abortion.” I kept it because I figured it needs to be refuted. Eventually I plan to write a rebuttal and send it back to them (studies and all), but for now here it is as some “food for thought”.

Here is the pamphlet from the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC).

To contact them about their pamphlet:

info@arcc-cdac.ca

ARCC-CDAC
P.O. Box 2663
Station Main, Vancouver, BC
V6B 3W3

On a completely different note, sign up to support this excellent documentary that is having its premiere in New York this week: Blood Money Film.

National March for Life 2010

Yes indeed my friends, it is once again time for the National March for Life. Tomorrow (being the 13th of May), we will show our fellow Canadians what our pro-life community is made of. For the official agenda, see here. For the uOSFL version, keep reading.

Now, as you may have guessed, the March for Life involves marching, so I recommend wearing comfortable shoes and bringing water. Tomorrow is supposed to be sunny with a high of 17°, so umbrellas and coats may be unnecessary but you may want to bring hats and sunglasses. The March itself begins at 1:30 pm, and may last about an hour. After the March, you may recuperate from the strenuous journey through the streets of Ottawa.

This, then, is the plan. We will be meeting on Parliament Hill at 12:00 noon. The club will be meeting at the halfway point between the Centennial Flame and the southeast corner of the lawn. So: if you are at the Centennial Flame, facing the Peace Tower, turn right and walk towards the East Block; you should bump into us about halfway across the lawn. We can be recognised by our enormous banner.

We encourage all students from the campuses to meet up with us by 1:15pm (just before the march starts) so we can all march together!

“The times they are a-changin’…”

by Eliza Jane Phillis

I’ll be the first to admit that for someone who has lived in Ottawa for four years, attending classes mere minutes away from Parliament Hill, I know very little, and to be perfectly honest, care very little about most of the political process. I vote more out of a sense of obligation toward the strong women of the suffragette movement than anything else, and that’s about it. However, I would really have to have my head in the sand not to have heard about the recent increase in interest in the abortion debate. I don’t really know what the G8 Summit is and only just realized it was happening in my own country this past week; yet, I can’t help but feel grateful for its unexpected side effect. It seems Prime Minister Harper’s has proposed plan of action to combat maternal health tragedies in developing countries which is wonderful and important. Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff’s appears to have pushed for the incorporation of access to abortion in this commendable initiative, and the Prime Minister said no. However, the discussions didn’t end there and the proposal and its opposition have really stirred the pot on the abortion debate. It seems Mr. Ignatieff, in trying to insinuate abortion into a proposal in which it has no place, has achieved what pro-lifers have been trying to do for years with minimal success: bring the abortion debate back to the public’s attention.

Listlessly flipping through a bus station newspaper yesterday waiting for my 96 downtown, I came across no less than three articles concerning abortion. One of these actually showcased the situation of University of Calgary students who are facing expulsion for participating in a controversial pro-life display. I was shocked! I’ve participated in a national March for Life which (legally) shut down whole streets in the capital city and seen no mention of it in the paper the next day. This type of exposure over a debate which the powers that be would like us to believe is closed and old news only demonstrates that the exact opposite is true. Yes, most of the articles had to do with the pro-choice side, but they still hopefully made my fellow readers think about where they stand in the debate which we pro-lifers know never really ended, but which many people on the street would likely rather ignore. This is an opportunity for us to explain our well-reasoned positions on life issues. This could be the unexpected spark which ignites a change in the hearts of those like myself who know little about politics but instead vote according to my personal moral convictions. I challenge all pro-life men and women in this time of great potential to take the time to really consider why you are pro-life. We all have our own personal reasons which keep us anchored to an ideal which sometimes seems so counter-cultural, and being able to clearly articulate and express these reasons is how we will change hearts one person at a time. We can’t all be politicians creating laws to preserve the dignity of life, but we can all explain why we as individuals maintain and promote this ideal. I commend the work of brave pro-life politicians, but I truly feel that politics will not in the end be the solution. Society needs to change, and no laws will bring this about, but individuals having respectful, intelligent, and open conversations have the power to end abortion in this country.

A consensus on abortion?

by Paul T

There is a striking distinction to be made in recent political developments. The opposition parties are standing in full contrast against the government in regards to the funding of abortion in the G8 Maternal Health Package. The government, much to the relief of pro-lifers, is not backing down from its announced stance on rejecting funds for abortion in developing countries. These opposition parties are calling on the government to remain true to the “consensus” that has remained in Canada for 25 years. This “consensus” is supposedly pro-abortion, according to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

I don’t think I could be any clearer; never, in the last 25 years of politics in Canada, has there been a “consensus” on abortion, for or against. Never has there been legal ground to promote or demote abortion services in Canada. The House of Commons had passed a bill intending to offer some legal framing in regards to abortion services shortly after the R. V. Morgentaler decision, but this legislation died in a Senate tie vote, effectively promoting a free roam on abortion services, for anyone who wanted them, at any time. What does this mean for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike? More importantly, what does it mean for women, and their unborn children? It means a woman can receive an abortion at ANY stage in her pregnancy, even the moment before birth. The unborn child has no recognized status in the eyes of the government until it has FULLY exited the woman’s body.

Even more striking, there is no legal framing to protect women who may be coerced into having an abortion by their family, their boyfriend, or significant other, their doctor, or any person of influence in their lives. The result has been effectively a battleground over the woman’s body for anyone who wants to take part. We as a society have been so keen to give women this right to abortion, that we have completely looked past any commitment to protect women from the implications that this brings on to them by people of influence in their lives. Pro-choice activists are vehemently against any attempt to protect women in these vulnerable situations. This can be great ground to build off of as pro-lifers in an attempt to care for the woman and her unborn child at the same time.

CBC coverage of censorship of pro-life clubs

by Rebecca Richmond

All in all, not bad coverage.  So much for the abortion debate being over….

Click here for CBC Video Coverage

It’s awful what groups like that of the University of Calgary and Victoria and have to endure.  Their examples of courage, selflessness, perseverance and determination are inspiration for us all.

A parallel universe

by Marissa Poisson

Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently claimed that “intelligent alien life forms almost certainly exist.” This led me to wonder what aliens would think about a debate we are having here on Earth. As I follow the controversy surrounding the G8 maternal and child health initiative, at times I feel like I might be living in a parallel universe. The Canadian government’s decision not to include funding for abortion in its plan to help save the lives of the world’s most vulnerable mothers and children continues to elicit outrage from some. Over in my parallel universe, it is incomprehensible that ending the lives of unborn children in impoverished nations would constitute humanitarian aid. Hunger, disease, violence, war – sadly, these are all-too-present in developing countries. But how does it follow that we can help others by promoting death as a solution? Because that is what opposition to abortion boils down to: abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. It doesn’t matter whether a pregnant woman is Canadian or Congolese: the child growing inside her has a right to life. An abortion is an act of violence, and the countries the G8 initiative will help certainly don’t need more of those. Women the world over need to find compassionate support when they look for help during a crisis pregnancy, not an offer to abort their baby.

Sometimes it’s easy to think that few people inhabit my parallel universe. The National March for Life is an excellent opportunity to see that that is not at all the case. On May 13th, thousands of people will gather on Parliament Hill to march through the streets of our nation’s capital and be a voice for the voiceless. If you live in the Ottawa area or can make the trip, I strongly encourage you to come to this important event. Who knows, you might even meet a friendly uOSFL earthling!

Breaking News: Roxanne’s Law Introduced in Parliament

Bill to Ban Coerced Abortion Introduced into Canadian Parliament

By Daniel Gilman

LifeSiteNews is reporting that today in the House of Commons Member of Parliament Rod Bruinooge tabled Bill C-510, which will be known as Roxanne’s Law. This bill is seeking to stop people from intimidating and pressuring women to have abortions against their will.  This bill recognizes the reality that there are women throughout Canada who are coerced into having abortions. As Mr. Bruinooge clearly stated: “Many women have been forced into unwanted abortions; others have been injured or killed for resisting, like Roxanne Fernando, in whose memory I have named this bill.”

Mr Bruinooge went onto explain, “In early 2007, Roxanne Fernando’s boyfriend attempted to coerce her into having an abortion.  After backing out on the decision to abort her baby, Roxanne’s boyfriend then chose to have her killed.  When someone uses coercion, it can lead to violence.  Roxanne’s Law will communicate to all Canadians that coercing a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will is unacceptable in a nation that values human rights.”

For further information see LifeSiteNews or continue to check our blog for further updates.

Please consider writing a brief email to Mr. Bruinooge letting him know of your support for this much needed bill: rod@bruinooge.com