Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Unbelievable | Main | Sarkozy in America »

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Surprising allies in the move to limit abortions

JohnOnLife writes, "There are a surprising number of people who label themselves as pro-choice who are arguing either for fuller information for women, greater emphasis on alternatives to abortion, or for significant restrictions on access to abortion that the majority of Canadian parliamentarians and much of the Canadian media reject at this time."

Who exactly are the public figures in this "surprising number"? Read JohnOnLife's full posting here to find out.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 8, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Surprising allies in the move to limit abortions:


The only people who will be "surprised" by the comments quoted there are people who have on such strong ideological blinders that they were never listening in the first place. People who oppose laws restricting a woman's right to an abortion have always thought that abortions are bad and that it would be better if the situation creating the desire to have one could be avoided in the first place. People who oppose laws restricting a woman's right to an abortion have always thought that the world would be a much better place if there were no abortions at all. No one celebrates someone having an abortion. It's only the radical right who fantasize such scenarios.

But all those people quoted still oppose any law restricting abortions in the first half of a pregnancy and with good reason. So sleep with them if you like, but don't be surprised if you end up pregnant with their child as a result.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-11-08 4:23:00 PM

The same Leftoids who tell us we should obey Al Gore on the off-chance he is right will be first in line to oppose abortions on the off-chance that fetuses are really human beings.

Fat Chick is their unofficial representative with his religious beliefs in the name of secular progressives.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 4:28:40 PM

I wonder if anyone read the verdict for a 14 years girl who helped killing a family of 3 in Medicine Hat?

She was 12 at the time. They are to spend $100 000. a year because they say she has disturbances!
So we will pay all that money and there is no way to be sure she will not do it again.

I would not mind see her on death row, but we do not have capital punishment. We hear she was at a party not far from the house one hour later. and that she was having pleasure seeing the people murdered by stabbing.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-11-08 5:22:28 PM

See the statistical victims of "choice" at:

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2007-11-08 5:54:48 PM

The one thing about stats I always think of is "Figures lie and liars figure"

JohnOnLife is an interesting blogspot but I am still waiting to hear what he actually wants to do about abortion. He has 4 months of observations lined up with lots of interesting commentary. Few responders and no real zip to his material.

If he wants to see positive things about all the proabortion politicians he comments on then I suggest that he wear those special glasses which will give his world a nice comfortable rosy hue. meanwhile for the rest of the debate I say get out there on the streets and show this dastardly deed called abortion to a world that simply wants to turn away from its horific legacy. Personhood will come when the demand to end abortion reaches the political and legal minds of this land.

Posted by: Servant | 2007-11-08 6:19:40 PM


I nominate the following fellow:

"B.C. court grants bail to suspected pedophile"

ABBOTSFORD, B.C. -- A Canadian man wanted in Thailand on child sex charges will be released on bail in B.C.'s Lower Mainland with numerous conditions.

A provincial court judge in Abbotsford, B.C., ordered Orville Mader to stay 300 metres from parks, libraries or any other public place where a child under 14 may be present.

SO WE ARE TO trust this pedophile to stick the conditions the court demands of him? And is the judge in question going to go to prison if he rapes another child? Or is the judge just going to say: "Ooops! I'm sorry" as that child is wheeled away to the nearest hospital - or morgue?

Leftoid justice rears its ugly head once again!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 6:34:26 PM

And here's my nomination for another late term abortion:

"Medicine Hat girl given maximum for slayings"

An Alberta judge has sentenced Canada's youngest convicted multiple murderer to 10 years. The 14-year-old girl had been found guilty in the slayings of her parents and brother.

Ten years is the maximum sentence allowed for someone of her age.

The girl, now 14, will spend four years in custody followed by four-and-a-half years living in the community under supervision.

Justice Scott Brooker gave the girl credit for the 18 months she has already spent in custody.

SHE'LL BE RELEASED to kill again - before her teenage years are over. Leftoid justice once again, folks!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 6:55:15 PM

There can be no limit or restraint on a government which condones the taking of innocent human life.

Such a government enslaves all its subjects.

In Western Civilization, only the Roman Catholic religion held firm regarding the absolute sanctity of innocent human life. All of the Protestant Christian sects allowed abortion "in certain exceptions" as (I understand) do the Jews.

The Roman Catholic religion lost its moral authority when it SECRETIVELY allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood (i.e. after the 1960s Second Vatican Council). Consequently, now they are conflicted and putrified with vile scandal to nearly blot out their foundational dogmatic Truths.

Could you comprehend a law concerning murder of innocent adult human beings which contained "certain exceptions?"

The arguments favoring or allowing abortion merely reveal the vacuum of morality among the proponents. All of those arguments are consistent with Atheism, Communism and homosexuality, the hall marks of the Leftist Liberals.

They say that among mammals only humans blush and they are the only ones with reason to.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-08 7:04:39 PM

"as (I understand) do the Jews"

The only exception Judaism makes for abortion is when the mother's life is in danger. (Not her mental health or even physical health - but certain death.) The rationale is that the mother is definitely alive, whereas the fetus may not survive childbirth with certainty, as children are wont to die in the process of being born from time to time.

The thinking is thus: A life versus a probable but not guaranteed life.

You may disagree, but there is logic to this theology.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 7:11:24 PM

obc -

The logic is clear and certainly appealing at the human emotional familial level.

The Catholic logic of NO exceptions, including the case of losing the mother, is that the already living person has had the opportunity to prepare themselves for the eternal life hereafter, whereas the unborn has not yet been Baptised (the Catholic Sacrament which is "normally" necessary for entry into Heaven - I won't bother to explore the various "exceptional" cases where Baptism is imputed...). ; - )

I like the Catholic program because it is amazing what all medical practicioners can accomplish when the "have to" and there is no exception.

Aside: My brother in law was run over by a car when he was a little boy and the doctors said they would "have to" amputate both of his legs. His Dad (a concrete worker who could crush you with his bare hands) TOLD the doctors, "NO YOU WON'T!" My brother in law was State Champion of our large State in one major individual sport and was also a champion water skier performing in water sports shows down in Florida when he was in college. Also, just an outstandingly terrific guy in every other respect throughout his life.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-08 7:34:42 PM

Vigilante justice? I'll sleep well tonight, knowing he'll never hurt another human being:

"Body Found Burned, Beheaded Identified As Sex Offender"

NORTHVILLE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — The Detroit News and Free Press are reporting that a burned and beheaded body found by a utility crew is that of a convicted sex offender.

A single fingerprint from the victim's burned hand has allowed Michigan State Police to identify him as 26-year-old Daniel Gene-Vincent Sorensen.

The print reveals that Sorensen had been a registered sex offender in Illinois.

Northville Township sewer and water department crews found the body at the end of a cul-de-sac about 20 miles northwest of Detroit about 9:30 a.m. Thursday.

Sorensen's head has not been found.

A cause of death has not been determined.

MAYBE THE CAUSE OF DEATH has something to do with that missing head? Just a guess on my part.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 7:36:51 PM

Conrad ~

Since Jews do not require baptism for the soul to enter Heaven, this explains the discrepancy in theologies.

Baptism is an exclusive Christian rite. Jews of course do not recognize it - and do not practice it.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 7:40:19 PM

Extremists control the abortion issue right now whereas most Canadians are moderates and would
probably agree with most of the recommendations below:

There is no justification for late term abortions. That should be taken off the table immediately but the pro-"choice" crowd won't allow it because of their "slippery slope" argument. Give it up. It is disgusting and inhumane.

Hand in hand with making late-term abortions illegal, one could declare the fetus a person for legal purposes from the time he/she is viable if there were premature birth which is around the five month mark, not the present situation requiring the baby to take a breath outside the mother's body. Thus, criminals who harm a viable fetus while attacking the mother will be legally liable.

For the pro-choice crowd, make it more widely known that spontaneous abortions are very very common in the first trimester, up to a third of pregnancies, depending on the study. On this background, a first trimester therapeutic abortion does not seem so different.

Be more upfront about the psychological and physical health risks for women who undergo therapeutic abortions. Why the obstructiveness on this issue from the pro-choice people? Women have a right and responsibility to be informed on any surgical procedure.

There should also be more open discussion about the impact of abortions on a society. Are rates of child abuse higher or lower in societies with liberal access to abortion? What is the justification for allowing private clinics funded by the taxpayer for this single procedure and no other? How healthy is it for a culture to dip below replacement birthrate because of widespread abortion, resulting in an influx of immigrants who do not share the host culture?

Finally, your religion stops at another woman's uterus.

Posted by: tarkus | 2007-11-08 10:04:06 PM

I choose the sanctity of human life.

Conrad, your assertion about the Roman church's stance on the issue is from a Western context.

The Orthodox tradition, from which the departure of Rome from the original Pentarchy that made up the original ancient church (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople represented all points east of Rome), also celebrates the sanctity of human life, whether it be the dependent unborn or the dependent adult.

It cannot logically be a choice of human beings to have the power of deciding the moment of death of a dependent human being.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-08 11:19:17 PM

There's a huge difference between the feminists who promote abortion ideology and the run of the mill proponent of legalized abortion.

Feminists do not care one iota about the fetus. Ever. They don't care if he suffers. They don't care if he's ripped limb from limb. Even abortionists who do this for a living have their personal limits. Morgentaler won't do them after 24 weeks because he feels he would be killing babies. There was an article in the NYT about abortionist Susan Wicklund who was freaked out at the sight of a fetus arm when she was doing a 21-week abortion. She decided to only do 1st trimester abortions after that.

If abortionists can't stomach it, why should the rest of society?

Feminists also see women as victims, no matter what the circumstance. The old argument goes that if abortion is illegal, women will do desperate things that will lead to their deaths.

How stupid do you have to be to shove a coathanger up your crotch and try to abort?

The message should be: if you don't want to die of an illegal abortion, don't have one! Chances are, you'll survive the pregnancy.

But no, that would be inconvenient to the rest of the women who want to be able to kill their offspring but who would otherwise go through with the pregnancy if they had to (and I think most would).

Abortion isn't even about the woman's right to do with her body what she wants. It's about the right to kill her fetus to avoid parenting. There are methods of late-term abortion that essentially boil down to inducing labour-- a very powerful and lethal labour-- to the unborn child-- nevertheless, about 10% of babies survive prostaglandin abortions.

Shouldn't it be enough to deliver the baby and remove him from the womb?

Why no. Women and doctors want them dead. So what they do is they take a syringe full of potassium chloride and jab it into the baby's heart whence he dies from a very painful heart attack. It takes about 2 minutes for the baby to die.

So it's not about "my body my choice". If it were, it'd be enough to just deliver him. They want them dead.

Posted by: SUZANNE | 2007-11-09 6:48:50 AM

The most virulent Feminist-Abortionists are childless and have never been pregnant. That individual is the mentally ill murderous core of Feminism. That individual is likely the "mother" of a coven of homosexual males and she is the fat old maid-divorcee who controls "her boys." Have you not seen this phenomenon?

Homosexuality is obvious mental illness which only Totalitarian tyrannical government could conjure up and foster as a "normal" human right.

Government which condones and advoactes murder of innocent (unborn as well as "too old") human beings is the definition of evil.

What do you have in Canada?

Is the infection spreading to America by the homosexual-advocacy "main stream media" and corrupt government school Teachers Unions?

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-09 7:52:21 AM

"Abortion isn't even about the woman's right to do with her body what she wants"

An accurate comment was made by Mike Adams that after aborting an almost full-term baby boy, someone was heard to comment:

"Gee - I didn't know a woman's "body" included a penis."

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 7:53:02 AM

Conrad ~

A large proportion of feminists are lesbians - and ugly ones at that. This is their revenge for their pathetic lives.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 7:56:40 AM

This issue of Abortion is huge to me for all of my life and yet in the space of mere hours an great wealth of knowledge and insight is shared and showered down on me from karol and all the others commenting here.

This issue of the BASIS of government, protection of innocent human life, is incomprehensibly still "new."

From that basic understanding of human society comes forward all the normal virtues which allow families to form, children to grow safely, young girls to recognize modesty as protection for their future children and all the generations which will descend from her, and to understand her own profoundly favorable impact on the character of the young men in her community, i.e. striving to show themselves worthy of her decision to choose a lifetime commitment to him.

We cannot construct a sound structure absent the basic foundation.

This must be proclaimed the Truth it is, and the fraud of "normalizing" homosexuality and its companion Feminism is only and utterly destructive of our nations.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-09 9:13:48 AM

Terry: Your reference to my post certainly started an interesting thread of comment. I wish that it would happen in the comments section of my various posts. My latest post, while somewhat drier than the one you kindly recommended, is probably more educational. I try to summarize and draw preliminary conclusions about current public opinion regarding life v. abortion from a number of public polls taken this year, mostly just last month. One of the most startling things I've learned from reading various relevant polls is that the strident pro-choice people are closer to the male perspective than the female. Many more men than women want unrestricted access to abortion, and women are more inclined to label themselves as pro-life than men. Ironic isn't it?

Posted by: John R. Sutherland | 2007-11-09 9:56:00 AM

"Many more men than women want unrestricted access to abortion, and women are more inclined to label themselves as pro-life than men. Ironic isn't it?"

Not ironic, John - predictable. These men would rather not face up to the responsibilities of raising a child for 18 years.

It is called self-interest - not championing the rights of women.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 11:16:21 AM

I am going to make two ballsy statements. Please don't attack me for this. Rather I want you to discuss them intelligently:

1. Increased abortion rates have resulted in a subsequent reduction in crime rates down the road.

2. Kids raised by single moms in impoverished ghetto environments are more likely to be leftoids.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-09 11:32:58 AM

epsi ~

Point 1 was made by Bill Bennett on his US radio show a couple of years ago. Naturally, Leftoids castigated him for weeks.

Point 2 is a no-brainer.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 11:37:13 AM

Abortion is the most egregious scar on the human condition. The 'ME, ME' generation, a batch of very coddled and spoiled people who were born after WWII were so loved and treasured by a generation of people who lived through the Dirty Thirties and then went on to fight and win the second world war that they were allowed to think that the sun rose and set on them.

In Canada, thousands of men died in WWII. They were not just soldiers or 'cannon fodder', these men were loved and valued as they had, more often than not, sacrificed their childhoods to work for the benifit of their families. The boys who fought the war were born, for the most part, between 1918 and 1924. Almost every family had lost a valued member of their family in WWI, all of them knew WWI vets. The 1920s were wild and wonderful for the people in Canada and the future looked good for most people.

People married, bought homes and endevoured to be independant owners of property and their livilhood - dependant on no government or boss for their place in this big, beautiful country. The Sky was the limit!!

All the hopes and dreams of the post WWI generation came crashing down with the crash of 29. Prosperous people became paupers overnight, then mother nature threw a drought into the disaster. People starved in silk shirts and ball gowns. The kids of large families were often 'farmed out' to work for food and babies were dreaded because they had to be fed. Babies were not killed though, the Greatest Generation grew up PROTECTING unwanted but not unloved brothers and sisters or sons and daughters. (A bit like the Irish families during the British occupation years) The thirties kids were tough and compassionate; they cared about their families with a love and respect that is almost alien in today's world.

When war broke out in Europe against the hated Hun who had killed and maimed so many fathers, uncles and cousins; the loving sons volunteered to fight. These young men were tough and self reliant and they won a second victory for Freedom and Liberty in the Free World. When they came home they were a mighty force, determined to give their children a betteer life than the one they had lived. The Greatest Generation did that in Spades but many of the boomers forgot to grow up as a consequence of being the sons and daughters of very powerful, self reliant men and women. Instead of helping their families they demanded all their parents had worked for - for selfish, instant self gratification.

The Turdo was not a soldier, he was a Nazi/Communist sypathizer and he attracted the men who had not fought in WWII because they had never felt adequate as men, living among soldiers who had fought and won a war after they had ground through the Dirty Thirties. Women also liked the idea of having a puny guy with flighty habits running the country because the men that they had married were so stong and self reliant that they did not have to worry about anything but playing bridge and keeping the house and kids clean and fed. The soldiers of WWII were not inclined to help around the house!

The baggage of the Dirty Thirties and WWI and WWII made a strange unintended impact on Canada. The soldiers won, Canada won, but the country lost. Men with generous hearts for all the down troden of the world gave with both hands to help their children and immigrants. Women of compassion for others erged giving and caring for other people because they had suffered so much themselves. They erged their stong husbands and fathers to give to all and not ask for anything in return. Not even loyality.

We boomers grew up thinking that we were "God's Gift' to the world and that all that was important was our wellbeing. Our parents allowed this self important image to emerge and they protected their offspring as they had protected their families in the Thirties and their fellow soldiers in the war. The stong values of good charater and independance were voiced but they always helped their kids when they failed and made up excuses for why those kids failed - they had had no such luxury in their own lives - law of unintended consequences led this country to elect a PM who squeezed the last strenth from the Greatest Generation by denegrating the Dirty Thirties kids as hayseeds and red necks and making Valor, Honor, Bravery, Courage and Freedom into parody. The soldier's deeds and heroic fight for others was degraded in public and young people, jealous of their fathers and grandfather's earned self respect made war into a dirty word to try to make themselves look important.

With this strange turn of events the acceptance for killing babies is not suprising. Self centered boomers did not want to be burdoned with diapers and the responsibility of other lives - they wanted to 'live' free!! Many grandmas and granddads of today have been party to abortions. The self important baby boomers would have to admit they were wrong and their parants were right - AGAIN - to change the mindset. I see this happening....it is a good omen for this country and the next generation. Boomers I know now treasure brothers and sisters and they feel sorry for the younger people who have only one or two siblings. I think that the shame of my generation will be the baby killing business we have allowed to be - like the Nazi's of Germany we will deny we were ever part of anything like that - it was the 'other' people who did it; we were just bystanders.

"Evil thrives only when good men do nothing"

Posted by: jema54j | 2007-11-09 11:38:36 AM

jema ~

An appropriate post for any time of the year - but especially so for this weekend. BRAVO!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 11:45:07 AM

A previous post stated "I think that the shame of my generation will be the baby killing business we have allowed to be - like the Nazi's of Germany..."
We are already there. SJG.
The New Nazis
By Stephen J. Gray

“Josef Mengele was the infamous Angel o£ Death at the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz, Poland. As a doctor with Hitler's dreaded SS seeking to unlock a genetic basis for a superior race, he conducted macabre experiments, primarily on twin inmates, using them like laboratory animals.” [1]

Who would have believed that a world that condemned the atrocities of Nazism would now be engaged in similar “work.” One wonders if Josef Mengele the infamous Nazi doctor were alive today would he be an enthusiastic participant in the abortion industry? Or to use the Nazi words, “lives unworthy of living.” Some human beings today are considered “unworthy of living” if we camouflage the killing as “choice.”

An article in the Vancouver Sun of January 20, 2007, stated, “A woman was naturally pregnant with twins, but wanted only one baby. She said that unless the physicians ‘got rid of one baby’ she would abort both.” The article goes on to say, “An article in the New England Journal of Medicine described how one baby was killed with an injection of potassium chloride into its heart, both were left in utero and at term one live baby was born and one shrunken fetus delivered.” This type of killing is called the ‘selective reduction process’ or could be called killing by “choice.”

Another example of where “choice” has led us is the stem cell industry. A BBC story headlined: “Ukraine babies in stem cell probe” had this to say, “There is a trade in stem cells from aborted foetuses, amid unproven claims they can help fight many diseases.
“But now there are claims that stem cells are also being harvested from live babies. …
“The BBC has spoken to mothers from the city of Kharkiv who say they gave birth to healthy babies, only to have them taken by maternity staff.
“In 2003 the authorities agreed to exhume around 30 bodies of foetuses and full-term babies from a cemetery used by maternity hospital number six.
“One campaigner was allowed into the autopsy to gather video evidence. She has given that footage to the BBC and Council of Europe.
“In its report, the Council describes a general culture of trafficking of children snatched at birth, and a wall of silence from hospital staff upwards over their fate.
“The pictures show organs, including brains, have been stripped - and some bodies dismembered.” [2]

The above evidence sounds like an industry in human slaughtering. It’s as if human life can be created then butchered like animals on a farm. Could we be headed in the direction of “fetal farming?” An article headlined, “Is 'Fetal Farming' In Our Future?”
had this to say: “If pro-abortion forces win the stem cell debate, it is inevitable that fetal farms will be established to harvest stem cells from unborn human beings.” The article went on to say, “Pro-abortionists have already decided that unborn humans are not really humans at all, so they can be killed in the mother’s womb. It is a very small step for them to recommend the establishment of fetus farms to grow humans for their stem cells.” [3]

Now the human stem cell industry is getting even crazier. An article in the Calgary Herald of November 8, 2006, headlined: “Mad science marches on” had this to say:

“It isn't hard to come up with a list of adjectives for a proposal that would allow scientists to create part-human, part-animal embryos in a lab. Frankensteinian comes to mind. So do repulsive, distasteful, grotesque and immoral.
“A group of British scientists has asked the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to give them permission to mix up a batch of embryos that would be 99.9 per cent human and the other 0.1 per cent goat, rabbit or cow egg cells.
“The resulting chimeric creature would be allowed to grow for 14 days and then destroyed and its stem cells extracted for curative purposes.” [4]

The words “curative purposes” are just another way to justify horrific experiments. The Nazis were in the forefront of experiments on human life. “About two hundred German medical doctors were involved in the concentration camp experiments, conducting 'Selektionen,' medical services, and research. They maintained close professional ties with the German medical establishment, and used the universities and research institutes in Germany and Austria in their work.”[5]

The “work” today on human life is done under the banner of “choice.” Babies are carved up, poisoned in the womb and some are even born alive and left to die after a failed killing by abortion. Some are even killed after being born: “An investigation is underway at a Florida abortion clinic after police found the body of a baby, following a tip that the child had been killed after birth.
“NBC6 News reported Friday on the discovery by Hialeah police, who said they had received a call alleging that someone at the abortion clinic had killed a baby born alive on the premises July 20.
“An initial search revealed nothing, police said, but another tip on Friday from an additional source led them back to the clinic where they discovered the body of the male child—approximately 22-weeks gestational development—in a biohazard container.”[6]

Some babies are killed because they are deemed unworthy of living: “The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.
“Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.
“Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.
“Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy…In 2004 it emerged a baby was aborted at 28 weeks after scans showed it had a cleft palate. ” [7]

We are a society that condemns the holocaust. Yet we have an ongoing holocaust in our midst, the killing of the innocents by the millions in their mothers wombs world - wide, and some are killed after being born. But, we call this “freedom of choice.” The Nazis called their killing “lives unworthy of living.” There is no difference between the Nazis of yesterday and the new Nazis today; the propaganda is the same. Words are used to dehumanize the victims: “Freedom of choice,” “potential life,” “clump of cells,” “every child a wanted child,” “the fetus is not a person,” and on and on the propaganda goes. Or to quote nazi propagandist Josef Goebbles:

“The effective propagandist must be a master of the art of speech, of writing, of journalism, of the poster and of the leaflet. He must have the gift to use the major methods of influencing public opinion such as the press, film and radio to serve his ideas and goals, above all in an age of advancing technology.” [8]

Josef Goebbles had it right for in this age of ‘advancing technology’ most of the ‘press, film and radio’ are constantly ‘influencing public opinion’ in support of the New Nazis.

Stephen J. Gray
January 25, 2007.
[email protected] website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo


1 http://www.posner.com/articles/mengele.htm

2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm

3 http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?980a1370-dee6-4d9b-8541-7fdaa5c73598

4 http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=d6ab7143-b814-4dab-a775-71740502c3f2

5 http://www.faqs.org/faqs/holocaust/auschwitz/part02/

6 http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06073103.html

7 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=388114&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

8 http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2007-11-09 12:57:43 PM

"The above evidence sounds like an industry in human slaughtering."

Of course it is an industry. Follow the money and see who is profiting from these procedures.

Peter Singer, the Princeton University "ethicist", espouses the right of parents to kill their babies up to 30 days after birth.

Ethicist - that's a person who makes up the rules as a convenience and not out of a set of humane human morals.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 1:04:43 PM

Interesting article below on Russia and abortion. SJG


Russian Healthcare Ministry Encourages Informed Consent and Abortion Alternatives
Doctors not required to follow procedure but it is strongly recommended

By John Connolly

MOSCOW, Russia, November 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the most recent in a long line of attempts to shore up the nation's critical demographic crisis, the Russian Federation's Healthcare Ministry has approved a measure to procure a signature from women seeking an abortion.

The document discloses the possibility of suffering grave complications from an abortion and provides a full list of potential medical hazards. The doctor performing the abortion would also sign the document, confirming he fully disclosed the medical risks and informed the woman of alternatives to abortion.

Doctors are not being required to offer the document to women for signing, but the Healthcare Ministry strongly recommends that they do.

The Health Ministry's proposal means the government is reluctantly realising the link between the nation's plummeting population and its staggering abortion rate.

Russia's birth rate is outpaced by its abortion rate, leading to a population crisis in the country. Russia has an average annual population decline of 700,000 people. 60% of all pregnancies are estimated to end in abortion in Russia, and has led to greater discouragement of abortions by distressed demographic experts.

President Vladimir Putin has called the demographic crisis a "critical" matter for Russia. Concern among government and healthcare officials has resulted in a number of schemes to convince couples to have children ranging from sterility taxes to a national "conception-day."

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Russian Youth Group Encourages "More Sex" to Save Motherland from Dwindling Population

Low Birth Rate is Russia's Biggest Problem Says President Putin

Russian Abortion Killing and Sterilizing Millions; Demographic Collapse Likely to be Worse than Previously Predicted
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05041209.html ;

Posted by: Stephen J.Gray | 2007-11-09 1:38:23 PM

Stephen ~

Within a generation, China is going to grab Siberia from the Russians because the latter will not be able to stop them.

The Chinese will do this for two reasons:

1. To steal the resources of Siberia

2. To provide women for the 20 million Chinese men who will not find wives because the "One Child" policy of Beijing has caused far too many women to kill their female offspring - either through abortion or at birth - because they want a son.

Abortion has sooooooo many repercussions beyond the obvious ones.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 1:51:41 PM

There's a really bad "chinese hooker" joke here somewhere!

Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-09 1:58:52 PM

Re the comments above: "Many more men than women want unrestricted access to abortion, and women are more inclined to label themselves as pro-life than men. Ironic isn't it?"

Not ironic, John - predictable. These men would rather not face up to the responsibilities of raising a child for 18 years.

It is called self-interest - not championing the rights of women.

When the sexual revolution hit, men thought they'd died and gone to heaven, Muslim heaven, with countless virgins to deflower.

However, there was one nagging shadow decreasing their enjoyment of promiscuous sex - unplanned pregnancy. Luckily for the men, whose self-serving agenda was perhaps a tad too obvious, there was a feminist movement afoot whose (flawed) mantra was that for women to be equal to men they should have all the freedoms of men, even ones that were unnatural to them, like promiscuous sex.

An entire generation of women were schooled by these feminist iconoclasts (who were disproportionately lesbian and promiscuous themselves) to run the risks of sex without committment to prove they were liberated.

The necessary corollary had to be easy access to abortion and encouragement to abort. Otherwise, everyone's "enjoyment" would be buried under a pile of dirty diapers.

So the horny irresponsible men and the bitter feminists had their way, in the process coarsening society,and putting Western culture on its deathbed with a declining below-replacement birthrate.

And the barbarians, with their high birth rate and open invitation to immigrate to replace all those aborted babies lived happily ever after.

Posted by: tarkus | 2007-11-09 9:51:31 PM

Are pro-life ads illegal in Canada or is it that networks won't air them? Some well placed ads during Canada AM or the CBC news would get the debate started again.

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-11-10 9:15:34 AM

karol ~

"your claim that more men than women want unrestricted access to abortion because these men would rather not face up to the responsibilities of raising a child for 18 years is totally bogus."

Those were MY sentiments - and I stick by them. I should have been clearer:

These men don't want to be financially responsible for 18 years of child support. Neither do they want to actually raise these children, but the money part is what they want to most avoid.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-10 9:42:08 AM

The notion that women civilize men always bothered me, I thought it was stupid. But as I've witnessed the effect of materialism and atheism upon women, who are "liberated" or Feminist and not oriented toward forming a family and raising their own children as an honor to their husbands, I realize that these new-type Feminist women have changed society and culture and basically brought an end to civilization (one by one).

We can each empathize with young people of our own gender as they grow up and find their own footing, because we were each once a boy or a girl ourselves. But as a parent, one becomes intimately aware of the "growing pains" of the other gender, and as does one have the opportunity to influence and advise and explain those experiences, lovingly and beneficially.

An individual young women can in fact change the entire character of her society by making herself a worthy and valuable contributing participant in the society, holding her sexuality as the exclusive experience of commitment of her life to a worthy life's work (creating and raising her family in union with her husband).

With an orientation toward giving and creating, the young women uplift all of society and culture.

With the orientation of taking and using (and being used), the young women coarsen and demean and terminate the society.

I raised my own daughter to understand her own physical beauty as merely and purely a gift from God and not any sort of achievement, but for her to recognize and understand how to actually achieve good things in life (it ain't easy, but you develop self respect as the basis for your walk through life).

So many men ONLY praise their daughters for being pretty and call them "Princess" and stupid materialistic crap like that. No wonder girls grow up in such a fearsome nightmare of insecurity and selfishness.

Both the mother and the father get to help children grow up in a natural human family and it takes every bit of their best efforts, which become obvious even to children as they learn to appreciate things that are good and recognize things that are bad.

Pretty is nice but a fickle unimportant thing. My daughter has appeared in four Hollywood movies, but vastly more notably she worked extremely hard to earn multiple professional degrees and she (slaves away daily) works as an Architect (married and trying to figure out the next steps).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-10 10:06:03 AM

"your sentiments do not reflect reality. If they were we would have been extinct millions of years ago."

I beg to differ. They reflect the NEW reality (sadly), thanks to the feminists. The reason we are not extinct is that it was not the reality until the 60's - and were it not for immigration, we WOULD be heading for extinction - because we are not replacing our people the natural way.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-10 1:19:41 PM

The Roman Catholic Church as absolutely no moral authority. This concerns all issues, including abortion.

The RC Church lost all moral authority when is chose to protect pedophile priests. It proved then that it puts it's own interests above all else. There has been no catharsis or redemption on their part.

Posted by: Paul | 2007-11-10 1:49:56 PM

Abortion physically scars the woman's insides, making her infertile (note the blatant corelation between "safe and legal" abortions and the huge infertility medical treatment industry).

Abortion emotionally scars the woman's insides; her heart, soul and mind.

Abortion is directly related to breast cancer subsequently in the woman's life.

Abortion's devastation of otherwise healthy women now operates so those women will participate in slavery of poor women in foreign lands to function as breeder stocker cattle.

Abortion severes the link between mother and child (i.e. the mother murders her own child; and sets her up to subsequently hire a slave to bear a child, and then someone else to raise that child, and he will belong to no one).

This is the fruit of the homosexual Feminist Atheist and Communist influences in society.

I blame the Roman Catholic Church and the 1960s Second Vatican Council of which the current pope was a significant young mover and shaker in the perverse abandonment of profound rigour in all matters of the traditional natural human family.

First action necessary, the pope must DISMISS ALL homosexuals from the Catholic clergy, thereby announcing to the entire world that homosexuality is a mental illness inconsistent with development of children and the natural human family. Until that is done the corrupt popes and bishops and priests make the Catholic Church purely a source of evil and corruption in the world.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-11 8:36:34 AM

Conrad ~

. . . which leads to this:

"Parents win right to grow babies for 'spare parts'"

PARENTS of sick children in Britain will be allowed to use IVF to create "spare-part babies" under controversial laws published yesterday. The legislation will dramatically relax rules on IVF clinics creating "saviour siblings" who can help cure their older brothers and sisters of medical conditions such as leukemia. Experts said that one day they could create a "designer baby" with kidneys perfectly compatible with a sibling suffering renal failure.


Posted by: obc | 2007-11-11 8:58:33 AM

obc -

These incomprehensible things occurring within the realm of civil law remain under our control, REALLY, by means of active (I detest this stuff) political action.

The VITAL ingredient is Leadership.

Natural Law, the sense of right versus wrong, is innate within mankind but as social beings we need encouragement and confirmation and consistent voices.

The amazing thing that it all comes down to is each of us must plumb our depths and pick up the burden, using our unique talents and not wait for the other guy to do our job or carry our burden.

The people who like this kind of thing (political activity) are exactly the WRONG ones to ever be involved in it.

Moral leadership from whatever source (I'm most familiar with the religious sources) is the key ingredient.

Leaders must not merely be just a little bit better than the other guy, but must clearly understand and enunciate the moral and the True.

Consequently, I cannot comprehend that a politician or a political party or government which fails to FIRST protect innocent human life can achieve good or ever be supported.

The "compromise" is dealing in death.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-11 9:19:52 AM

Conrad ~

Let's face it. The vast majority of our politicians are failed citizens. They want to affect the future through laws and their power - not their personal efforts in the arena of private enterprise.

That makes them especially dangerous, for they try to find "meaning" in their lives by controlling those of others.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-11 9:26:59 AM

There are already restrictions on abortions--and there are also very few pro-lifers who would deny a woman an abortion if her life was directly being threatened and could be saved if she was assisted with a medical abortion.

Persoanlly--I feel that abortion should stay a medical matter and that politicians should stay away from it. Ethics in the medical world has been making excellent progress on the definition of what constitutes human life--and the numbers of weeks in which women may opt for abortions has been on the decline. The provision of information is a normal part of giving women the information they need to make decisions about their health and well being. The answer to many will be ensuring that women get the information they need--so that one day, when they find out about what they had done to themselves, that they are not shocked or were not under a delussion that the baby they were carrying was anything more than a blob--that it had nerves and feelings just like anyone else.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-14 9:42:45 AM

Maybe I am not done here.

What we are seeing are Pro-Choice-Lifers OR Pro-Life-Choicers. The matter was once politics against politics and now it is getting sorted out through right and wrong where it ought to be sorted out.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-14 9:44:13 AM

Lady -

I quote from your penultimate comment above: "Persoanlly--I feel that abortion should stay a medical matter and that politicians should stay away from it. Ethics in the medical world has been making excellent progress on the definition of what constitutes human life--"
Lady 11/14/2007 @ 9:42:45AM

I think you contradict yourself in that comment.

Although I am pleased with what seems to be movement by you toward the sanctity of innocent human life view, it makes me hope for more.

"Ethics" is more the purview of "political" than it is "medical." Medicine is more of a physical science, whereas Ethics is entirely a social-cultural-moral issue ("science").

obc has recently reviewed with me the Jewish ethical stance regarding abortion and I realize that I'm unequal to the task of overwhelming the weight of that wisdom (although I believe it to be "wrong" in that it is at odds with "my" Catholic view of the issue - and I find that the genius of Jewish people seems to bloom in such cases where a self-serving argument can be concocted to circumvent one of their own - many - religious laws).

Aside from (though it is profound) the Jewish versus Catholic "exception in case of life of the mother" particular, you and I seem to (now?) agree that abortion is murder, NOT some issue of "freedom" for women.

I hope that I have correctly understood your position-belief as it seems to have evolved or developed above (and my recollection of your self-identification elsewhere as being a Jew).

IF I have all-most of this correct, I hope you will use your (considerable) influence with our mutual friend, Epsilon, to guide her away from the Feminist (fraud) view of abortion, as some sort of a good thing, relating to "freedom" rather than as a vile crime of murder, which it truly is.

I think Epsilon is quite likely an influential person (and will be increasingly so throughout her probable long life into the future), much the same way as I expect is true of you.

All of the (stupid) reasons "justifying" abortion (e.g. I don't want to be responsible for raising a drug addict in a slum, with my tax dollars, blah, blah) fall apart quickly, once the act is recognized as murder.

You are probably uniquely suited to explain this to Epsilon, for the benefit of Canada, America and the entire world.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-21 11:10:09 AM


I in fact embrace the Jewish view on abortion.

Abortion--I feel--is a misnomer, as it applies to all that which results in the termination of a pregnancy--whether caused by nature/GD/the mother/accident/force/medical or otherwise I cannot think of at this point in time.

What I feel the catholic view on abortion stands is the discussion on the actual medical abortion.

We have discussed the various kinds of medical abortions before. You agree that there is a difference between a medical abortion--to save a woman's life, and a medical abortion for other reasons? I think the catholic stand is that medical abortion to save a woman's life, is OK, as she has her husband, possibly other children, and can have more children, correct?

So, what we are really talking about is the number of children who are aborted as the mother chooses to do so.

Under the Jewish view, whether a woman is married or not, raped or not, can afford children, or not, is too young (a known threat to w young woman's life) or not, matters. Furthermore, it also matters from the viewpoint of when is the fetus that the mother is carrying, a feeling and sentient being? I have heard it said that Catholics view the very beginning as when the spersm and egg are together--and yet conception is also when the fertilized egg actually is conceived into the womb--as many simply do not make it and leave the body naturally.

Being merely a cell--and saying that being a cell--is a part of life would also mean that any cell is life--and that all cells that are living are in fact life. I don't think so as cancer cells are also life and yet we would not hesitate to get rid of all cancer if we could. So, where medical ethics comes into being--and not just simply ethics in general--is where is the point by which beyond that there is a human being?

Clearly, medical profession in Canada does not condone abortion beyond about 40 weeks, unless in an emergency to save the mothers's life.

So, what we are really talking about is the point between the fertilization of the egg, and 40 weeks. And, no matter which way it is put, we are also talking about the woman who is carrying the unborn.

My sense is that society as a whole has done a terrible job at taking care of the women amongst us. We have gone to a terrible point where the future generation can be wasted on the hospital ward--like garbage. And, we are talking about those that are viable--and not those that are not viable--as those that are not viable are that way as a result of a medical condition--as in dead or not able to live beyond the womb.

There is no doubt that the life is human, as even a petrie dish of fat cells that are alive are also human--so it is in that gap, not including medically necessary abortions, and those that are not necessary, where there are many levels of discussion.

Now, I cannot impose a Jewish view on everyone any more than you can impose a Catholic view onto everyone. Yet, where there is room for improvement in the current circumstance, is in where the medical societies--that have quasi-legal status--are changeing their views on what is permiseable and what is not--after all they have to make the call to save or not to save--when the time comes. Medical Ethics is a school of ethics and a discipline of ethics that is not the same as other ethics--aka ethics of policework or ethics of family, ethics of manufacturing cars--etc.... medical Ethics concerns itself with that area where it is decided whether a person is medically dead or not, and many other areas. It is certain that the political effects the ethical decision making processes--and yet judaic and catholic views are also effected by politics. SO, if we cannot remove hte political--then we have to accept the fact that politics, like currency, is throughout the ethical marketplace.

having said that--what people buy into--in relation to ethics, and in this case biomedical ethics--is relevant. You will not get your way by impossing your religious view in a nation that has separated church and state. This is as important to me as it is to you--as I doubt either you or I would want to be impossed upon by any other religion--no matter how much they think and feel we should cow to their version of GD. And yet as far as I am concerned, the abortion market can be reduced--if not eliminated-- in relation to those abortions that are not medically necessary--or that fit any other category beyond inconvenience--through respecting the life of the woman--the girl--who is born with the womb in the first place.

In other words, if women are taken care of properly, and have a safe place to have children, they do not abort their babies. If women have good options other than abortion--they do not abort their babies. The social world that we live in, does not have sufficient mechanisms in place through which women can actually withdraw from whatever they do and safely and discretely give their babies up for adoption. We don't have these mechanisms. If we did, then we could make a huge change in the situation...and after a while, it would become standard that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies do not destroy a woman's life--her education--her family--they are simply a very important part where the choices to give up for adoption, are favourable to destroying the next generation of people.

You are not going to convince a world that does not share in the view of the human and the sanctity of life. But we could all be doing a much better job at creating a nest to catch people before they fall.

Last thing I have to say is in regards to feminism. The foundation of feminism was anti-abortion. Feminism and socialism are not the same thing at all. What mainstream has construed as feminism is nothing more than a socialist's view of women, and stems from the marxist view that women are a passive workforce that is ready to be employed if and when there are not enough men to do the work. It has nothing to do with foundational feminism--which views the woman as equal including all that is important to women--including being a mother, having children, caring for the next generation--as responsible parents do and as responsible people who would be parents, do.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 11:44:23 AM

One last thing Conrad--that of murdering the unborn.

Although you have views on what is and what is not murder, you have not actually put forward how it is you see the actual term of murder as fitting the view that abortion is murder.

If two people are involved in the same car accident, at the same time, in the same car, and both have exactly the same injuries, are of the same strength, and their conditions have the same pressing life threatening status--and there is only enough resources to save one--is going ahead and saving one murdering the other?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-21 11:48:04 AM

Lady -

You are generous with your knowledge.

A few specifics: a) the Catholic teaching regarding the actual beginning of human life, is moment of conception, i.e. the fertilization of the human egg cell with the human sperm cell, to the point that with no other action except the passage of time and protection (i.e. nourishment, etc.) the thus created human being will emerge so that anyone can readily recognize the indesputable reality of that human being (e.g. when he or she cries and is placed in its mother's arms); b) Margaret Sanger, one of, or THE initial founders of Feminism was primarily an abortionist who fully focused her life's efforts upon the extermination of the Negro race, this was the foundation and inception of Feminism; c) ANY deliberate action taken to terminate a pregnancy artificially, e.g. punching the mother in the stomach, flushing her uterus with salt water or acidic or caustic fluids, probing her uterus with coat hangers or IUDs, etc. which kills the baby is an "abortion" and a deliberate planned killing of an innocent individual human being, which is a murder; d) the Catholic view, in the rare case of an absolute descrete necessary choice between saving the life of the mother or of the baby, is to ALWAYS save the baby and ALWAYS allow the mother to die (if in fact one of the two must die, even if the baby is horribly deformed and the mother is the most wonderful perfect beautiful woman in the world). The reasoning regarding item (d) is that Catholics view life as continuing beyond physical death into eternity, and that one must be born and baptised in order to enter eternity in the presence of G-d, i.e. Heaven.

I do not attempt or intend to impose my beliefs on anyone, but rather to explain and encourage these things which I believe to be True, and which I know do no harm, but rather much good for everyone.

We have millions of elective capricious abortions performed each year in America for the actual true purpose of destroying humanity. The crazy arcaine extreme "what if" questions and odd possibilities, which CAN BE posed in order to cloud this issue, are in fact all fraud.

Regarding the well being of women versus abortion, I will guarantee the Catholic Church will care for ANY, EVERY, ALL, pregnant women, anywhere-everywhere in the world, so that those women can safely give birth and care for their babies. Anyone who cannot obtain such care through-from the Catholic Church (geographically closest to you), please contact me on this blog and I will redirect you to where I am CERTAIN it will be done.

If we choose life, we demonstrate trust in G-d and He then proves the wisdom of our Faith by delivering all things necessary.

I hope you will help me in our future discussions with Epsilon.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-21 2:38:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.