|
Have faith - Prayer, Fasting 
|
|
|
|
Campaign Life Coalition NS
March/April 2008 Newsletter
|
||
|
Tax funded
Abortions in NS [FAQ's]
|
||
|
|
||
 |
1. A Disaster For Canada's Human Rights Commission – March 28, 2008
Jonathan Kay, National Post, Published: Friday, March 28, 2008
Earlier this week, I argued that Canada's human-rights censors have managed a seemingly impossible task: They've found a way to rehabilitate the image of neo-Nazis, transforming them from odious dirt bags into principled free-speech martyrs. Case in point: At this week's much-anticipated human-rights hearing in Ottawa, a team of journalists and bloggers were campaigning openly in support of hatemonger Marc Lemire. The villains were Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigator Dean Steacy and the other apparatchik who've made a career out of parsing Lemire's phobic Web postings.
Tuesday's hearing probably won't change the outcome of the case against Lemire: Like a five-star hotel that guarantees its guests full satisfaction, the HRC provides handpicked complainants with a 100% success rate on hate-speech cases. Better than that: The commission actually lets certain complainants waltz into its Ottawa facilities to fiddle with the online evidence gathering. As Ezra Levant writes on his blog: "If this were a real investigation of a real crime with real police, and the alleged 'victim' were to walk right into the crime lab, hop on the officers' computers, and poke around the evidence, a judge wouldn't have to throw the case out – prosecutors would be too embarrassed to even bring the case to trial. Not so at the commission."
But even if the HRC nails Lemire, Tuesday's eight-hour hearing will still be remembered as a landmark disaster for the commission. Despite efforts by Steacy and others to stonewall on specific questions of HRC procedure, observers were nonetheless able to extract a fairly detailed picture of commission work practices. The impression that emerges is an overstaffed shop in which unionized desk jockeys sit around "investigating" obscure web sites in search of some scrap of actionable hatred. When they don't find anything, they log on and try stirring things up themselves – a practice Lemire describes as entrapment. This amateur hour version of The Wire would be funny – if the HRC weren't spending millions of taxpayer dollars in the process, and turning the lives of the accused upside down.
To read further, go to:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=4e4782ed-4e97-4994-8772-102ad5438c50&k=8655
2. Bella Starts Friday, May 11th At Oxford Theatre In Halifax – March 28, 2008
If this showing is good, it will likely move to the Empire Theatres. Be sure to visit the Bellas Website. Take in a movie and take your family. – Herm
Bella Starts in Canadian Movie Theatres May 11 – Length and extent of showings throughout nation depends on first weekend ticket sales volume – By Steve Jalsevac.
March 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bella, the widely acclaimed, life-positive movie that won the People's Choice Award at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival, is finally going to be shown in Canadian movie theatres. After a very successful United States run, the producers have finally been able to confirm theatres for an May 11 opening in 11 Canadian cities in 6 provinces.
An additional 5 or 6 runs in more Canadian theatres and cities are expected to be added. The additional showings, however, may heavily depend on the opening weekend attendance numbers. Bella's producers are therefore encouraging Canadians who appreciate such ethical themed, Hollywood quality movies to fill the theatres during that first weekend.
In the United States many Church and other groups and even individuals booked theatre time slots for their people to see the inspiring movie. As well, Bella was widely promoted by supportive organizations wanting to encourage this much needed, dramatic new development in the movie industry.
Producer Leo Severino advised LifeSiteNews yesterday that he just received confirmation of a 14th pregnant mother and her baby saved from abortion because of the direct influence of the movie.
The Canadian distributor, Maximum Films, has confirmed the following cities and theatres for the April 11 opening:
CALGARY, Alberta
Empire Studio Country Hills
Eau Claire Cineplex
EDMONTON, Alberta
Empire Clareview Cinemas
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia
Oxford Theatre
LONDON, Ontario
London Westmount Cineplex
MONTREAL, Quebec
AMC Forum
OTTAWA, Ontario
Empire Cinemas AMC
TORONTO GTA, Ontario
AMC Kennedy Commons
AMC Winston Churchill
AMC Interchange
VANCOUVER, B.C.
SC Coquitlam
SC Riverport
Cinemark Tinseltown
VICTORIA, B.C.
Empire Capitol Cinemas
WINDSOR, Ontario
Windsor 1 Cineplex
WINNIPEG, Manitoba
Empire Grant Park Cinemas
See the official Bella website: http://www.bellamoviesite.com/site/
Previous LifeSiteNews.com reports on Bella:
Bella Star Reveals Difficult Personal Journey From Soap Opera Star to Producer of Ethical Films: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102408.html
Toronto Film Festival Winner "Bella" Finds Major Distributor, Anticipates Opening October 26
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07072609.html
'Bella' Movie Star, Eduardo Verastegui, Saved Real Baby While Researching Film
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121004.html
Fans of Quality, Ethical Movies Urged to Support Bella With Bulk Ticket Purchases and Theatre Rentals: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102409.html
Latino "Heartthrob" Soap Opera Star Speaks out against "the holocaust of abortion"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/070508.html#5
"Bella" the Movie to be Released Across United States October 26: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07083105.html
E-Mail to a Friend: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/sendtofriend.html?articleid=08032801
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=08032801
3. Brain Dead Man Saved From Organ Harvesting – March 27, 2008
Doctor Says about "Brain Dead" Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – "Brain Death is Never Really Death" Expert says, "Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science." – By John Jalsevac
OKLAHOMA, March 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, a man who was diagnosed as "brain dead" and who was mere minutes away from having his organs harvested, now says, four months after the accident that brought him to the brink of death, that he feels "pretty good." Dunlap's story was told in an NBC piece aired earlier this week, in which the young man himself was interviewed.
While Zack's case is being touted in the media as a "miracle", a neonatologist and expert on brain-death has told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack's case, while remarkable in a sense, is not as rare as the mainstream media's reporting makes it seem.
"The young man was never dead," said Dr. Paul Byrne, a former president of the Catholic Medical Association who began writing about brain death in 1977. What makes Dunlap's case unusual, though not unheard of, says Byrne, is that Zack was lucky enough to be found out to be alive before his vital organs were removed.
"While the story is put out as something that's miraculous," he told LifeSiteNews, "I don't want to take anything away from God, but it's not supernatural what occurred. If there is anything miraculous about it, it is that they didn't get his organs before someone was able to notice some sort of other response. He was always living – his heart was always beating, there was always blood pressure, he was always very much alive."
Dr. Byrne says that over the years he has collected information pertaining to numerous cases where patients labelled brain dead have "returned from the dead." The reason being, says Byrne, is that "brain death is never really death."
Zack Dunlap suffered numerous broken bones and severe head trauma last November after he was involved in an accident, in which he lost control of the four-wheeler he was driving and flipped over. At the hospital doctors diagnosed the young warehouse worker as "brain dead". Oklahoma officials were informed that Zack was legally dead and that his organs were about to be harvested.
"We wanted to make sure that some lucky person got to live on through Zack's heart," Zack's mother Pam told NBC.
Plans to remove her son's organs, however, were put on hold in a dramatic fashion.
Two of Zack's cousins, both nurses, said that, in the final moments before the medical team that was to harvest Zack's organs arrived, they felt that their cousin wasn't truly gone. On a hunch Dan Coffin ran his pocketknife across Zack's foot. The supposedly brain dead patient reacted immediately by jerking back his foot. Coffin then dug his fingernail beneath Zack's fingernail, a particularly tender spot on the body, and his cousin once again reacted by drawing his arm across his body.
"We went from the lowest possible moment to, 'Oh, my gosh, our son is still alive!'" related Pam Dunlap.
Zack's grandmother said that she too felt, like Zack's cousins, that her grandson wasn't ready to go. Shortly before her grandson began to show signs of life again, she had gone into his room and prayed for a miracle. "He was too young for God to take him," she said tearfully in the NBC interview. "It wasn't time."
"I had heard of miracles all my life. But I had never seen a miracle. But I have seen a miracle. I've got proof of it," she said.
"We both feel that God has some big plan for Zack. We'll do everything in our power to help him pursue it – whatever it is," said Dunlap's mother.
The young man himself told NBC that he heard the doctors pronounce him brain dead, and said, "I'm glad I couldn't get up and do what I wanted to do." When asked what he wanted to do, he responded, "There probably would have been a broken window they went out."
"It just makes me thankful, it makes me thankful that they didn't give up," he said about his relatives' last attempts to find out if he was still alive. "Only the good die young, so I didn't go."
Zack's father, Doug Dunlap, says that he doesn't blame anyone, indicating that the doctors assured him that his son was dead, and that there was no blood-flow to his brain. "They said he was brain-dead, that there would be no life, so we were preparing ourselves."
48 days after Zack's accident, the young man returned home, walking on his own two feet. He still suffers some emotional problems, memory loss and other consequences from the accident, and a full recovery may take up to a year. But his parents say that they are simply thankful that their son is alive.
Dr. Byrne, on the other hand, told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack's story should be taken as a warning about the insufficiency of the brain death criteria. "While this story tells the young man hearing them talking about his declaration of brain death, the question is, is how many of the other organ donors are in a similar situation, that the only thing is that they end up getting their organs?" he said.
"Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science."
In 2007 Dr. John Shea, LifeSiteNews.com's medical advisor, wrote in agreement with Byrne's concerns about brain death, saying that the criteria of "brain death" is scientific theory, and not fact, adding that it is a theory that is particularly open to utilitarian abuse and therefore should be treated with extra caution. He also pointed out that there is the added trouble that there are a number of various sets of brain-death criteria, such that a person may be considered dead according to one, and not by another.
See previous LifeSiteNews.com stories on this issue:
Denver Coroner Rules "Homicide" in Organ-Donor Case:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/oct/04101208.html
Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/sep/03090906.html
E-Mail to a Friend: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/sendtofriend.html?articleid=08032709
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=08032709
4. Brazil Teenager Murdered By Boyfriend For Refusing To Abort Her Child – March 26, 2008
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
SÃO PAULO, Brazil, March 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Mariana Almeida Andrade, a sixteen-year-old resident of São Paulo, lost her life for refusing to abort her unborn child, according to local police.
After finding the teenage girl strangled to death in a vacant lot at a petrochemical plant in the São Miguel Paulista area, police interviewed her ex-boyfriend, who reportedly confessed that he killed her for refusing to have an abortion. Almeida Andrade was three months pregnant at the time.
According to the police, her 17-year-old ex-boyfriend, who remains unnamed in media accounts, said he did not want the baby because he had a new girlfriend. When Almeida Andrade refused to agree to abort the child, he strangled her to death.
"He confessed to the crime in the presence of his parents. He had a relationship with the girl and also with another girlfriend," said Marcos Carneiro of the police department's homicide division. "She was pregnant and he didn't want the child. He wanted her to have an abortion. During the argument, he said he lost his head."
An autopsy is being conducted to determine if Almeida Andrade was truly pregnant, and to confirm that she died by strangulation.
Due to the fact that he is a minor, Almeida Andrade's ex-boyfriend has been turned over to the custody Fundação CASA, which handles detention and supervision of criminals 21 years old and younger.
Abortion is illegal in Brazil but for cases of rape.
E-Mail to a Friend: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/sendtofriend.html?articleid=08032703
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=08032703
5. Canada Orders Ministry By Christians Shut Down – March 30, 2008
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59600
6. Canadian Centre For Policy Studies – March 21, 2008
What's New? – March 21, 2008
Commentary
Carbon tax is far from revenue neutral – John Williamson
Energy prices are going up. Oil has hit record highs, resulting in higher transportation costs. Food prices are increasing. It is also becoming more expensive to heat homes and drive the family vehicle. And Canada doesn't even have a carbon tax. Yet, environmentalists are calling for one all the same, saying it will be economically painless. This is nonsense. The world is not melting but our standard of living soon will be if global-warming alarmists have their way.
Brace Yourselves – the Russian Bear is stirring – Joseph B. Varner
So the Russians have elected Vladimir Putin's hand-picked successor, Dimitri Anatolyevich Medvedev, as President. Is anyone really surprised? Although there may not have been any voter fraud to speak of, there is little question that the process itself was rigged. The whole campaign was carefully staged to give Medvedev such an enormous advantage that his defeat was virtually impossible.
God save us from "public" health care – Joseph C. Ben-Ami
It’s ironic that the politician most credited with bringing health care under the control of government in Canada was also an ordained Baptist minister – in today’s secular parlance, a Christian fundamentalist. Given his strong religious convictions, one cannot help but wonder how Tommy Douglas would react to the drama now unfolding in a Winnipeg courtroom, where a Christian hospital is fighting, with the approval and full financial backing of the government (meaning taxpayers are footing the bill), for the “right” to stop caring for an elderly disabled man by the name of Samuel Golubchuk.
Surely Douglas would be mortified, and in the face of overwhelming evidence, would admit that his dream of state-run universal health care was nothing more than a utopian illusion – a sort of beauty and the beast story in reverse, where the innocent maiden suddenly discovers that her handsome lover is actually an ugly, sinister monster in disguise.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies is a non-partisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom, security and prosperity through the development and promotion of sensible conservative public policy. The Centre receives no grants or subsidies from any government or political party, relying instead on the good will of private citizens to support its work.
Please help support the Centre by making a donation today.
Or you can send a cheque or money order to: Canadian Centre for Policy Studies; P.O. Box 1318; Station B; Ottawa, ON; K1P 5R4
7. First It Was Ford And Now It’s GM – March 30, 2008
General Motors Supports The Gay Agenda
General Motors has made a decision to help promote the homosexual agenda. The automaker supports the gay agenda with advertising in homosexual publications and on the gay TV cable channel LOGO.
GM's Cadillac regularly places full-page ads in The Advocate, a magazine dedicated to pushing the homosexual agenda. The LOGO TV network carries programs promoting the lifestyle.
Jon Brancheau, director of media operations for Saturn (a subsidiary of General Motors), left no doubt about General Motors' support for the homosexual lifestyle. In a letter to someone who complained about GM's sponsorship of an episode of the LOGO program "Adam and Steve," Mr. Brancheau wrote.
"Given that this film aired on the LOGO network, which is widely know(n) to offer content oriented for a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender audience, we feel comfortable with our decision to advertise during LOGO's broadcast of the film." (Full letter.)
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=gmgay_032708&messageid=gmgay_032708&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234274&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&100&&&http://www.afa.net/gmletter.html
Mr. Brancheau's comments make it very clear that GM knew the content and nature of the programs on LOGO, and they have no reservations about sponsoring the "Steve and Adam" program and supporting the homosexual network.
Take Action
GM is blocking our e-mails. They don't want to receive them. Therefore, we are asking individuals to sign the petition.
We will then deliver the petitions to GM. We will provide only your name and state. Forward this to family and friends and ask them to send the e-mail.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.
https://donate.afa.net/default.aspx?ask=gmgay_032708
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association It's Not Gay
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=gmgay_032708&messageid=gmgay_032708&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234274&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&107&&&https://store.afa.net/pc-42-5-its-not-gay-dvd.aspx
The sanitized version of homosexuality being presented is not the whole truth. They're Coming to Your Town.
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=gmgay_032708&messageid=gmgay_032708&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234274&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&108&&&https://store.afa.net/pc-10000122-5-theyre-coming-to-your-town-dvd.aspx
Homosexual activists take control of a city government in a small Christian resort community. Spiritual Heritage Tours
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=gmgay_032708&messageid=gmgay_032708&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234274&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&109&&&http://www.spiritualheritagetours.com
Explore Washington, D.C., from a Christian perspective with AFA President Tim Wildmon.
8. Grandma Behind Bars, Airs Saturday Night – March 29, 2008
"Speechless... Silencing The Christians" Third Episode
Dear Robert,
AFA has received more positive comments about "Speechless ... Silencing the Christians" than any of our projects. Now comes the next episode! Watch, and then forward this to your family and friends.
The third episode of "Speechless... Silencing the Christians" will be shown Saturday, March 29, at 8:00 p.m. (E.T.) on INSP cable network. This episode is titled "Grandma Behind Bars" and tells how two grandmothers were jailed because they spoke out in public about their Christian faith. You can watch the program on the INSP cable network.
See if INSP is available on your cable system.
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=silencing3_032808&messageid=silencing3_032808&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234278&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&100&&&http://www.getinsp.com
Or you can watch it on-line at silencingchristians.com.
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=silencing3_032808&messageid=silencing3_032808&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234278&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&101&&&http://www.silencingchristians.com
You can view the third episode on the Web for free, but you must register to view the program. With traffic being heavy on silencingchristians.com…
http://outbound.afa.net:80/track?type=click&mailingid=silencing3_032808&messageid=silencing3_032808&databaseid=1234&serial=1181234278&emailid=bobeva@vaxxine.com&userid=15623075&extra=&&&102&&&http://www.silencingchristians.com …your computer may be slow. If so, we advise you to come back later and view it. The program will be up all week.
9. Halifax Homosexual Activists Produce License Logo for Upcoming Pride Week – March 28, 2008
Promoters of homosexuality in Nova Scotia have been encountering resistance recently to their agenda – By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, March 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The official logo for this year's public display of homosexuality in Halifax is designed to resemble a Nova Scotia automobile license plate. It includes a small rainbow flag in the top left corner and "Canada's Ocean Gayground" under the vanity plate number 20 YRS PRD 08, with the words License to Celebrate prominently printed below, according to the Halifax Chronicle Herald.
The phrase "Canada's Ocean Gayground" openly mocks the provinces official motto of "Canada's Ocean Playground."
The word "license" in this case plays upon the double entendre, the other meaning of this word, which is defined by the Oxford dictionary as "freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way that results in excessive or unacceptable behaviour; a reason or excuse to do something wrong or excessive."
The word licentious is derived from this meaning and is defined by the Oxford dictionary as "promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters."
Planners of the homosexual event, said the Chronicle Herald report, are considering using the new logo on billboard advertisements, as promotional images on Halifax Metro Transit buses, and the logo might also be printed on stickers or other display items.
Promoters of homosexuality in Nova Scotia have been encountering resistance recently to their agenda from several municipalities, which have refused to allow displays of the homosexual rainbow flag on public buildings and flagpoles.
In the summer of 2007, the Truro town council was approached by local homosexual activists to fly the rainbow flag at Town Hall. The mayor, citing religious beliefs, and backed six votes to one by the council, refused. Later Truro town council enacted a policy of not flying any flags except those of the town, province, nation and First Nations.
In February of this year, Pictou County followed Truro's example and changed its official policy to fly only official government flags.
The city of Antigonish and St. Francis Xavier University have also refused to allow the homosexual flag to be flown from their buildings.
In 1998, Fredericton Mayor Brad Woodside refused to proclaim "Pride Week" until forced to do so by the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Nova Scotia Mayor Refuses to Fly Gay Flag Because of Christian Beliefs
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080706.html
Decision to Limit Flags that Can Be Flown is "Homophobic" Says Activist
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020607.html
E-Mail to a Friend: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/sendtofriend.html?articleid=08032808
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=08032808
10. Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defence of Abortion
By Donald DeMarco – The Interim
In 1971, Princeton University Press published, in it maiden issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs, an article by Judith Jarvis Thomson entitled, "A Defence of Abortion." Dr. Thomson, born in 1929 and a professor of philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written highly acclaimed books and articles on a variety of subjects. With her "defence of abortion," however, she hit, so to speak, the philosophical jackpot. Her article has become the most widely reprinted essay, not only on the subject of abortion, which is a remarkable phenomenon in itself, but in all of contemporary philosophy. Because her article has been reprinted, anthologized, amplified, circulated, read, and discussed as often and as much as it has, it seems reasonably safe to assume that it has had a significant influence, particularly as an apologia for abortion. The article's broad popularity among abortion advocates suggests that it is the best argument that has been put forth as a defence of, and argument for, abortion. Recently, a philosopher from Tulane University wrote a book-length defence of it.
Thomson feels confident that she can defend abortion, even if she concedes (although she really does not believe in) the humanity of the unborn. She states, "I propose, then, that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception." Now the ethical dilemma is this: if both mother and uterine child are both human and both have rights to life, can abortion be ethically permitted where the woman does not want to continue her pregnancy?
In order to solve this dilemma, Thomson provides a most imaginative analogy, perhaps the best-known one of its kind in all of abortion literature:
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist (who) has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment ... the Society of Music Lovers ... kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own ... To unplug would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months."
Thomson believes that she has constructed a similitude that perfectly parallels the case in which a pregnant woman is yoked to her unwanted child for the same length of time. Her argument rests or collapses on this presumption.
There are parallels, to be sure. But are the scenarios, from a moral point of view, in perfect parallel with each other? In both cases, there are two human beings who have rights to life. In both cases, the continued life of one depends on the willingness of the other to make extraordinary sacrifices. But the parallel she needs in order to make her analogy viable is contestable. Is it true that unplugging yourself from the violinist and directly aborting an unwanted child are morally equivalent acts?
Thomson is confident that virtually everyone would argue that unplugging yourself from the musician is morally permissible. Here, she seems to be on reasonably firm ground. But her firm ground is established by the fact that this image is not controversial. Abortion is controversial because it involves factors that are not present in the violinist image. Let us examine three of these factors.
The act of unplugging yourself is justified on the basis of self-defence. It is a legitimate response to assault and battery (and in the example Thomson uses, to kidnapping and unlawful confinement as well). The development of the child in the womb is not an example of assault and battery or anything close to it. Assault and battery presupposes wilfulness and malice aforethought, and has always been regarded as criminal acts. It has never been regarded as a criminal act for an unborn child to develop in his mother's womb.
The act of unplugging is not the direct cause of the violinist's death. He dies as a direct result of his kidney ailment. On the other hand, direct abortion does, in fact, directly kill the child in the womb. The two acts are distinct and have entirely different moral implications. Self-defence against an unjust aggressor is a different act than directly killing an innocent child in the womb.
The intention present in unplugging yourself from the violinist is to be set free and not that the violinist die. It would, indeed, be immoral to intend the death of your host. This situation, where two ends follow from a single act is handled, classically, according to the principle of double effect. It is never permissible to intend an evil. Therefore, it would be morally impermissible to intend the death of the violinist. But this unfortunate consequence of freeing yourself is permitted to happen because you have a right to free yourself from an unjust aggressor. In a parallel example, doctors remove an ectopic pregnancy from a woman. The intention corresponds to good medicine, removing a pathology (the tube, for example, in which the ectopic pregnancy occurs) and not to intend the death of the foetus, although that consequence does transpire.
The intention of abortion is graphically clear. It is to kill the unborn child. This intention is made all the more salient by the expression "tragic complication," which is used to describe the rare event of a child surviving a late-term abortion. The aborting woman intends to free herself from her unwanted child, but she and her doctor directly intend the death of that child. Another term for induced abortion is "feticide," which literally means, "killing the foetus."
Thomson supposes that the violinist and the victim are unrelated. She adds nothing to their relationship that would mitigate the victim's aversion to being yoked for nine months. The two are presumed to be total strangers. Such is not the case with the relationship between the mother and her child. The victim, by virtue of being yoked to the violinist, does not inherit or attain any specific kind of positive relationship. He does not become his brother, for example. When a woman conceives a child, she is no longer merely a woman. Nor is the child merely her child. Conception confers maternity on the woman and her child is her son or daughter. There is a relationship between the two that is primordial, interpersonal and universally recognized. A mother is expected to do things for her children that strangers are not expected to do for each other.
Morality begins when people are generous and loving, when they exercise their duties to be decent, rather than their rights not to be inconvenienced. Thomson asserts that "we are not morally required to be Good Samaritans or anyway Very Good Samaritans to one another." Her language is always legalistic. She completely misses the point that personal love and generosity are primary and that law, rights and obligations are secondary.
John Finnis is correct when he encapsulates the radical weakness of Thomson's argument by saying that she is trying to reduce the mother-child relationship to a "sort of social contractarianism." It is essentially unjust to try to settle a matter of life and death, which is what abortion involves, by ignoring the ethical primacy of love and generosity, while looking to legalistic terms for guidance. Law without love is another way of defining the path to the culture of death.
Thomson's defence of abortion is, in itself, a significant contribution to the culture of death. What is even more pernicious, however, is her facile deconstruction of motherhood and reduction of all human beings to islands of self-serving individuality. In order to rationalize the death of the unborn, she feels compelled to rationalize the death of the person as a locus of love and generosity. It is as if she is saying that we need the death of the authentic person in order to justify the death of the unborn. One form of killing necessitates a prior form of killing. If our souls are dead, we will surely be dead to the iniquity of abortion.
Donald DeMarco, a regular contributor to The Interim, is a professor of philosophy at St. Jerome's College at the University of Waterloo and Holy Apostles Seminary in Massachusetts.
11. Latimer Did Not Act Out Of Love – March 8, 2008
By Dr. L.L. deVeber, National Post, Published: Saturday, March 08, 2008
Latimer Out To Clear Name, Feb. 29.
Those who believe Robert Latimer acted out of love because he believed Tracy was in terrible severe chronic pain should know the following facts that came out at his trial.
No one taking care of Tracy reported constant severe pain--not her group home, her school, nor, most importantly, her mother. Latimer himself said that Tracy was not in pain when he carried her to the truck to gas her, although he had previously stated she was in severe pain whenever he picked her up. Apart from the occasional Tylenol, she apparently received little consistent pain medication.
It appears Tracy's severe pain was more in Mr. Latimer's perception than in reality. Fortunately, the law recognized Tracy's killing as a crime and he was punished with a brief jail term. But the following years saw a marked increases of parents killing children for perceived suffering or with a poor future.
No wonder the disabled community is nervous about its future. Legalizing this type of killing would be a terrible mistake. Rather our health care system should seek to relieve as much distress as possible, and further support the current research.
Dr. L.L. deVeber, president, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada, London, Ontario
12. One Of Top 10 Female Bloggers Is Prolife – March 30, 2008
http://www.jillstanek.com/
Suzanne invited you to "Vote for Pro-Life Blogger Jill Stanek for Women's Voices Making History" today.
Suzanne says, "Jill Stanek is the only pro-lifer among 10 finalists for a women's blogging award. Please for her here: http://action.wvwv.org/favorite_blogger
She blogs at: http://www.jillstanek.com
Contest ends April 11th. Invite all your pro-life friends.
13. Pro-Abortion Law Firm Calls On UN Committees To Pressure States On Abortion – March 30, 2008
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK — C-FAM) The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) just released a new and updated version of their “signature” document that uses the non-binding recommendations of UN committees to argue that sovereign nations must legalize abortion as part of their international legal obligations. “Bringing Rights to Bear http://www.reproductiverights.org/index.html” claims that these recommendations reflect “the growing recognition among these UN bodies that reproductive rights are firmly grounded in international human rights treaties.”
For years, CRR has been at the forefront of a what some have called a "stealth strategy" to redefine longstanding human rights like the right to life, the right to privacy and the right to be free from discrimination and insert abortion rights into those broad provisions. An integral component of the CRR strategy is to get the UN committees that oversee nations’ compliance with their treaty obligations to reinterpret the treaties to include abortion. UN compliance committees contain a large percentage of personnel from pro-abortion groups and have become increasingly active in reinterpreting UN documents and pressuring governments to follow their interpretations.
“Bringing Rights to Bear” catalogues the successes of the CRR strategy and cites numerous examples of UN committees calling for legalized abortion and widespread access to contraception. Unlike the treaties themselves, the recommendations of the treaty monitoring bodies are non-binding, but the CRR paper argues that these non-binding recommendations must be used to “guide governments and advocates in further promoting human rights,” including abortion. CRR calls for using these non-binding committee recommendations “to support legal challenges in national, regional, and international human rights institutions.”
The CRR document urges the UN committees to continue to “emphasize that abortion should be a safe and legal option for women in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, even where there is a disproportionate reliance on abortion due to the limited availability of contraceptive methods.” The document also urges the committees to issue detailed directions to tell states “how to overcome barriers to [contraceptive] access, such as lack of availability to certain methods, legal restrictions on contraception, excessive regulation (including requirements for third-party authorization), cost, lack of or inadequate insurance coverage, and coercion in the reproductive health context.”
Even though CRR and its allies call for these reinterpretations, in fact only the most recent UN human rights treaty, on the rights of persons with disabilities, mentions “sexual and reproductive health,” and only with the strict understanding that the term does not include abortion. The left wing group Human Rights Watch notes that since 1995 there have been over 100 instances where the UN committees have pressed over 65 nations to legalize or increase access to abortion. Recently, though, some governments have begun to push back at the committees and stand up for their pro-life laws.
CRR is one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups at the United Nations and works worldwide to mount legal challenges to abortion laws. CRR’s “expert litigation committee” and board of advisors include three UN special rapporteurs, as well as the former head of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Nafis Sadik.
The CRR will release briefing papers on maternal mortality as well as marriage and private life as part of its revised “Bringing Rights To Bear” series. For more news visit us at: www.c-fam.org.
14. Shocked, 25% Of Teen Girls Carry A Sexually Transmitted Infection – March 17, 2008
By Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D.
http://www.townhall.com
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DrMiriamGrossmanMD/2008/03/17/shocked
Monday, March 17, 2008
The response to the CDC’s report last week that 25% of teen girls carry a sexually transmitted infection suggests that this comes as a shock to many, including some in our sex education industry.
This is reminiscent of the scene in Casablanca in which Captain Renault tells Rick that he is “shocked – shocked! – to find that gambling is going on in here”, and then quietly collects his winnings.
The pandemic of STIs in this country is a logical consequence of the way we educate kids about sexuality. Until an “extreme makeover” of our methods takes place, young people – especially girls – will continue to pay an awful price.
Consider an organization like SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), the leading voice for sexuality education in this country. Their Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education is in widespread use: over 100,000 copies have been distributed, and it is downloaded at the rate of 1,000 per month. Thanks to this document, our children are instructed from a tender age that “all persons are sexual”, that “both boys and girls have parts of the body that feel good when touched”, and that “couples have varied ways to share sexual pleasure.” Mind you, this is what they deem appropriate for five to eight year olds. While acknowledging that “early involvement in sexual behaviours poses risks”, one of SEICUS’ “inherent values” is that “young people explore their sexuality as a natural process in achieving sexual maturity.”
With that message coming from professionals, we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that 34% of girls are sexually active by fifteen. That figure goes up to nearly 80% five years later, with over a fifth of all fifteen to nineteen year olds reporting two or more partners in the past year. Hey, they are exploring their sexuality; it’s only “natural”.
For a teenage girl in 2008, “exploring” her sexuality places her at risk for some two-dozen different bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi. She is likely to be infected soon after her sexual debut. This is due to the prevalence of these organisms, their ability to infect without symptoms, the widespread practice of casual sex with multiple “partners”, the inconsistent and improper use of condoms, and to a girl’s physiological vulnerability.
SEICUS emphasizes that “sexuality is a central part of being human,” and it wants our kids to know that it is “a natural and healthy part of living.” That may have been an important message for young people to hear when the organization was founded some forty years ago. But things have changed. We’re fighting a battle against a multitude of new bugs, and the bugs are winning.
Unlike Casablanca’s double-dealing police chief, SIECUS can’t have it both ways. It can’t claim to be fighting disease while celebrating the very behaviours that cause disease. Organizations responsible for protecting our children have a choice to make. Either acknowledge that remaining infection-free is not a goal of their curriculum, or begin telling kids, especially girls, to delay these experiences. Tell them “exploring” is likely to be followed, sooner or later, by regret, while “waiting” has only benefits. Sexual experiences may be “central” to being human, but so are many other things that have no place in the life of an adolescent.
That so many American girls have a sexually transmitted infection should come as no shock. Rather, the shock should be at the madness in our country that we call sexuality education.
Related Media:
VIDEO: STLMoms: Group Pushing Abstinence In Wake of High STD Rates in St. Louis
Related Articles # CDC: 1 in 4 teenage girls have an STD
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DrMiriamGrossmanMD/2008/03/17/shocked
15. Still More About Robert Latimer – March 30, 2008
By MARK PICKUP
I have received threatening communications designed to intimidate me from writing or making posts that portray Robert Latimer in a negative light. Therefore, I am republishing an earlier article in fuller detail about the Robert Latimer case, complete with references. I don't submit to any form of intimidation or threats. Read "Still more about Robert Latimer" at http://humanlifematters.blogspot.com
Mark Pickup
16. Why Canadians Are Forbidden To Express Their Church's Teaching – March 30, 2008
Homosexualists desire to remake society, while denying Canadians the right to publicly oppose them – Editorial by Fr. Alphonse de Valk
TORONTO, March 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the previous editorial I mentioned that in Canada, “opposing the homosexual lobby is a lonely task. Many Canadians are frightened, hostile, confused, or indifferent.”
(http://catholicinsight.com/online/editorials/article_787.shtml)
One reason for their “fright” is the Human Rights Commissions who have lent their authority to silence opponents of homosexual practice and coerce the non-compliant who simply desire to be left alone. One reason for media “hostility” is the notion that an all-encompassing tolerance is the supreme virtue and that any restriction on it must be seen as intolerance, the supreme vice.
Finally, the reason for “indifference and confusion” is that the Supreme Court has legislated sexual orientation to be a Charter right. This newly coined “right” was “read” into the Charter by Justice Peter Cory in 1995. This new right of equality now conflicts with existing (Charter) rights such as freedom of the press and of religion
(http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_788.shtml).
The last point answers at once the question why it is important, indeed necessary, in Canada to resist: our rights as citizens are at stake. This is true not only for Catholics and Evangelicals, but also for the Greek Orthodox, orthodox Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and anyone who holds to a traditional understanding of marriage in natural law, both as individuals and as supporters of such institutions as school, church, synagogue, mosque and temple. In order to understand why this is so, one must turn to the literature of the homosexual activists.
A good example is an article by André P. Grace & Kristopher Wells entitled, “The Marc Hall Prom Predicament: Queer Individual Rights v. Institutional Church Rights in Canadian Public education,” (http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE28-3/CJE28-3-gracewells.pdf).
The article quotes dozens of sources by “queer” (their word) writers. The two authors of the article, therefore, may be said to represent the views of the activist homosexual community at large.
The article’s summary introduction reads as follows:
In 2002 Marc Hall’s principal denied him permission to take his boyfriend to his Catholic high-school prom. In examining the politicization of the ensuing prom predicament, we critique Catholicized education and what we perceive to be the Catholic Church’s efforts to privatize queerness as it segregates being religious from being sexual. We situate this privatization as the failure of the Catholic Church to treat vulnerable queer Catholic youth with dignity and integrity as the church sets untenable limits to queer (p. 238).
The Catholic Church’s “institutional efforts to privatize queerness” is explained as – “to keep it hidden, invisible, silent, unannounced – in religion, education, and culture.” This is done, the authors note, “without regard for the broader public law,” as demanded by the Supreme Court ruling of 1995 which inserted sexual orientation as a new Charter right. The Church continues to ignore it.
The Church interprets everything from a “heterosexist” point of view. “In this light, heterosexism is the precursor of homophobia.” (240). It has a “pedagogy of negation” with an intention to “demean or dismiss or fail to protect (queer) youth.” The Church uses its constitutional denominational school rights (Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867) to block people’s rights.
The Church’s attempt to “privatize queer” is the equivalent of refusing that person “dignity and integrity” (242). The Vatican’s 1986 document, “ The pastoral care of homosexuals” is referred to as the “Halloween Letter” (244). The Church places itself “above civil law” (245). The school’s rejection of Marc Hall’s request was “discrimination” (247). Both Bible and Tradition are “cultural technologies of control.” The Catholic religion is a “political force seeking power for itself” (249).
Marc Hall was a “victim.” His activism was “not planned but provoked.” Because Bishop Anthony Meagher did not accept tolerance according to Freire (which culminates in “inclusive education”), therefore he was “anti-democratic,” and “discriminatory” (253). The article concludes with the note that Catholic ideology is oppressive (261) and that, “Institutional churches have no business in the classrooms of the nation” (265).
Finally, the authors provide proof that they fully understand what it is they seek, when they approvingly quote from Britzman’s, “Is there a queer pedagogy?” (1995):
“Gay and lesbian demands for civil rights call into question the stability and fundamentalist ground of categories like masculinity, femininity, sexuality, citizenship, nation, culture, literacy, consent, legality [religiosity] and so forth… (p.2).
In short, the homosexualists desire to remake society, while denying Canadians the right to publicly oppose them.
The public should know what we are up against.
This editorial was originally published in the April 2008 edition of Catholic Insight Magazine. Fr. De Valk is the editor of Catholic Insight, which is based in Toronto, Canada.
E-Mail to a Friend: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/sendtofriend.html?articleid=08032707
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=08032707
17. Why Religions Must Be Free To Determine How Doctrine Applies To Their Members – March 30, 2008
By Iain T. Benson
Centre for Cultural Renewal
http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=37&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=197&_nc=90cc3f5723e2387814de62a37808d66a
TWO RECENT items, one within Canada, the other outside it, and both involving (at least in principle) the Catholic Church and politicians, give an interesting angle on the misuse of the phrase 'separation of Church and State.'
Complete article: see http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/080327comment.html
18. Comment On The Call To Legalize Euthanasia In France
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
