Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« At times I even surprise myself | Main | Here we go again »

Monday, January 28, 2008

Celebrating the infamous

Interesting to see that Simon Fraser University's Women's Studies Department is being lauded in this poster about tonight's feminist celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada's Morgentaler decision. More evidence of the rampant bias in such departments, it appears.

Also interesting to see is that the part of the poster that advertises the screening of the documentary film Henry describes the abortionist as "one of Canada's biggest heroes." It's a ridiculous assertion, of course, especially in light of the fact that last summer's flawed but telling Beaver poll placed him as the third "worst Canadian" of all time--showing that he remains an extremely divisive figure.

Meantime, while feminists gather tonight to celebrate their unfettered ability to kill defenceless unborn children, a pro-life group in my neck of the woods will be holding a candlelight prayer vigil to mark the infamous date. Organizer Colleen Roy says her group will erect 274 tiny crosses, one for each of the unborn children who dies every day at the hands of an abortionist in Canada.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 28, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Celebrating the infamous:


How bizarre that anybody would celebrate the killing of the innocents in Canada. Here is my take on our Obscene oops I mean Supreme Court decision.

Celebrating a Killing Decision
By Stephen J. Gray

“…we celebrate the Supreme Court decision,…”
Judy Rebick, National Post, January 26, 2008

The Supreme Court of Canada brought down a judgement in 1988 that took abortion out of the criminal code. Canada now has no law on abortion, and we now have unrestrained killing. Over 100,000 lives are slaughtered yearly in the name of “choice.” Ms. Rebick in her National Post column stated: “Ninety per cent of abortions in Canada take place in the first 12 weeks.” There is a picture of an 8 week human life torn apart by abortion at: http://www.AbortionNo.org where one can see the butchered body of this tiny human. This is a cause for “celebration” in Canada? Surely, something is seriously wrong in a supposedly “civilized” country that we would even allow this type of barbarism?

There were a number of articles on abortion by various writers in the National Post during the week of January 21 to 28, while it was interesting to read this debate on state sanctioned killing, I believe, there was evidence lacking in the Post’s coverage. For example, in most mainstream media we get pictures of the victims in wars and the atrocities perpetrated on them, the middle east is but one example. The holocaust is another. In the coverage of the killing by abortion we do not get to see the dismembered victims in the media. Why is this? “A picture is worth a thousand words” as the saying goes. And this week in the National Post we had no pictures. Let the people see the gory pictures of the little innocent victims carved up and cut to pieces by abortion. Then go and interview Ms. Rebick and have her explain the dismembered bodies of these little innocents under “12 weeks” who have been butchered. Below are the methods used in this “celebration” of killing.

Source for the following information on abortion methods is: http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes

Suction Aspiration
This is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded [Note: This abortion method should not be confused with a therapeutic D&C done for reasons other than pregnancy.]
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)
This method is used up to 18 weeks' gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.

Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection):
Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)

Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion:
This form of abortion uses chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. which cause the uterus to contract intensely, pushing out the developing baby. The contractions are more violent than normal, natural contractions, so the unborn baby is frequently killed by them -- some have even been decapitated. Many, however, have also been born alive.

Five steps to a partial birth abortion:
1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.
2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head
4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.
5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

[End of procedure descriptions as provided by aforementioned link.]

Most people are horrified when they see pictures on television of baby seals being clubbed to death and the ice flows running red with their blood. Warnings are issued on TV before showing the pictures and we are told the images are gruesome. Imagine if these same TV cameras or if the National Post took us inside a local abortuary where babies are slaughtered, suctioned out, poisoned by a saline solution or in some cases born alive and left to die. Then published the pictures! The people would be able to see this grisly “procedure” performed by abortionists. The light would at last be shone on this atrocity called “choice,” and one wonders, would it still be a cause for “celebration?”

Stephen J. Gray
January 28, 2008.
[email protected] website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-28 12:55:31 PM

After reading the above comment I am puzzled why anyone in Canada would possibly want to "celebrate" the horendous anniversary. Clearly this date deserves only to live on in infamy for the atrocious miscariage of justice that it is. 2,000,000 children's blood soaks the scarlet and ermine robes of our Supreme Court justices. January 28th is the saddest day our counrty has ever known.

On CBC's Newsworld last night Henry was i nterviewed for the umpteenth time and his discourse is one I would like to see posted. He rambled on with his usual platitudes but added a very egotistical rant about how he thought he was the greatest. They then had him talking or reading some of his peotry and that was an eyeopener for those of us who "respect" women. This hero of the abortion industry got rather graphic in his description of things he prefered about women. Some hero. He has taken all of womankind for a huge ride these last 20 years and in his last days he is finally telling them how he really feels.

Posted by: Servant | 2008-01-28 2:18:01 PM

I detest Morgantaler. I am in favour of abortion. I am also a woman of faith and of child bearing age. There are many of us.

How do do you reconcile me?


Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-28 2:45:53 PM


Why would you detest Morgentaler? As a woman of faith you should follow the mantra of "love thy neighbour" As that same woman of faith you should also love your unborn neighbour. If you don't then there are two strikes against you actually being a woman of faith.

I certainly don't hate Henry. With all my heart I hate what he does to my unborn neighbour.

Posted by: Servant | 2008-01-28 3:53:19 PM

It's not up to anyone to reconcile you ,that's between you and your faith.
But, to those that consider Morgentaler a hero and celebrate the death of millions of fetus',I doubt that there's any faith they can reconcile themselves with.

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-01-28 4:02:43 PM

I second Servant's question: Why,indeed, do you detest Morgentaler?

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-01-28 5:20:20 PM

Here is an excellent article by Doctor Will Johnston from lifesite news today:

Canada: The Only Civilized Nation with No Legal Restriction on Abortion
Physicians for Life comments 20 years after Morgentaler decision

By Will Johnston, President Physicians for Life

OTTAWA, January 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Since the Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988, Canada remains the only civilized country in the world with no legal restraint on abortion.

Abortion advocates in and out of the medical profession continue to falsely claim a consensus on this open practice, yet polls repeatedly show that 2/3 of Canadians want some legal protection for the unborn child; the Morgentaler justices themselves stated the state's interest in this goal.

As physicians, we see how our justice system lags behind science:
- there is no medical indication for abortion;
- there is no biological difference between a "wanted" and an "unwanted" child in the womb;
- a fetus born prematurely at 24 weeks becomes a "baby" with the full protection of Canadian law, while a fetus 4 months older, still in the womb at full term, has no legal rights at all;
- genocide against female babies in the womb, with ultrasound and abortion as the weapons, are a reality in certain cultures in Canada, yet cannot be questioned (unless hypocritically) by an uncompromising pro-choice ideology.

Abortion is not only fatal for the unborn child, but dangerous for the pregnant woman who makes this choice. The only true choice is an informed choice, yet we question the validity of a woman's informed consent for abortion when its advocates deny or attempt to cover up the true complication rate.

An independent Ontario study revealed that in the first 3 months after abortion, a woman falls victim to:

* a 4-times rate of hospitalization for infection
* a 5-times rate of hospitalization for another surgical procedure
* a 5-times rate of hospitalization for psychiatric care, in a health care system when only the most dire psychological cases can get a hospital bed.

The world literature is replete with the reported increased risk of infertility, breast cancer, and subsequent premature delivery and its associated higher rate of cerebral palsy after an earlier abortion.

Abortion advocates are frustrated by the dearth of new young physicians willing to perform abortions. They are organizing radical new plans to indoctrinate medical school curricula with their agenda, and defy any alternate voice. Most sinister of all, they cry out to punish doctors of conscience who resist plans to force them to be part of the abortion referral network.

They cannot accept the real reason why most doctors do not go into abortion: very few young, intelligent and caring medical students go into the wonderful field of medicine to kill.

Has it all gone too far?

We see another pressing social need that rarely commands much media attention: the long, heartbreaking lineup of couples who want to adopt a newborn baby. When the adoption option is considered, there need be no such thing as an "unwanted" child, and therefore no need for abortion. That is a society we'd like to see, and care for.

Can Canada do better? Twenty years after Morgentaler, we think so.

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-28 5:24:15 PM

Hey "Servant", we don't celebrate dead fetus', the celebration is for "choice" - that's why we're called pro-"choice".

Posted by: Free-thinker | 2008-01-28 6:16:57 PM

If it's a choice, then it is optional which means that you should pay for it out of your own pocket, instead of sticking the taxpayers for the bill! Talk about hypocrisy!

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-28 6:28:45 PM

Hey "Servant", we don't celebrate dead fetus', the celebration is for "choice" - that's why we're called pro-"choice".

And which faith can you reconcile your "choice" with?

Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-01-28 6:38:46 PM

Funny how there are so many people here preaching about women's bodies but when I ask them to think for me and reconcile my position, they all clam up!

That is my point.


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-28 6:42:35 PM

Free-thinker wrote: "Hey "Servant", we don't celebrate dead fetus', the celebration is for "choice" - that's why we're called pro-"choice"."

Nice try, Slick. If you support abortion in principle, you support it in practice. Your lame attempt to argue that the two are not the same is an unconvincing piece in sophistry. Abortion as we know it could not exist without colossal amounts of egoism and denial. I wonder if these radical feminists really have any idea how grotesque, how loathsome, how utterly self-absorbed they look to ordinary people.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 6:46:22 PM

I think that celebrating Morgantaler(a for profit fetus remover who also happened to be a three-time married serial cheater)as a hero to a woman's body and having a celebratory 20th anniversary gathering to talk about their abortion experience is sick and unreconcilable to any faith or religion.
Epsi, you don't seem to fit in either catagory.

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-01-28 7:08:07 PM

The cult of adoring airheads surrounding Morgantaler reminds me of the fawning fans of Dr. Kevorkian, better remembered as "Doctor Death." Admirers lauded how he provided his clients with "death with dignity," while somehow managing to overlook that he left the decomposing corpses of those same clients in the parking lots of hospitals he didn't like.

People with this level of denial should have anti-psychotics rammed down their throats with a stake.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 8:05:00 PM

Bocanut gets it.


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-28 9:39:38 PM

epsi: you can't reconcile. you should be forbidden by all law to kill the unborn human babies.

Posted by: dewp | 2008-01-28 9:51:54 PM

Typical chauvanist bigot.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-28 10:07:31 PM

epsi: you are wrong on these things. celebrate life, not death.

Posted by: dewp | 2008-01-28 10:10:32 PM

I don't think English is Dewp's first language.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 10:11:17 PM

that's a lower case 'd'

Posted by: dewp | 2008-01-28 10:21:42 PM

What? A feminazi love fest. I do doubt Epsi that you actually would want to be part of this.

You write you support the right to abortion, so perhaps you would not mind answering a few questions.

Do you support the present situation where even a fully formed and viable baby has its skull pierced and its brains sucked out and then is dismembered?

As this is not a health issue (not referring to the rare case of the mother's life at stake), do you support this choice being funded through health care?

When you refer to the woman's body, are you saying that the father has no say in the matter? If so, I suggest a double standard since if the child is born, the father is held responsible.

I do not wish to bait you but do hope you will give some thought to all the issues.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-29 12:00:45 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.