General: Share Your Thoughts on Abortion and Euthanasia
How do you think the pro-life movement can awaken the conscience of Canadians to the evil of induced abortion? In what ways have pro-lifers succeeded in Canada and how have we failed?
Share your thoughts with other pro-lifers on these and other topics related to abortion.
So-called mercy-killing without punishment has taken place in Canada. It may be only a matter of time before the next attempt to legislate the legalization of euthanasia. We have an opportunity to alert Canada to the true nature of euthanasia. How can we best do this?
Contribute your thoughts. You may help to shape a strategy to deal with the threat of euthanasia
posted by Ted Hewlett | Post Page
35 comments
35 Comments:
First off you use the word evil. I know you believe it is Ted and to be honest even if I am pro-choice I don't totally disagree. However the rhetoric on both sides (word evil in this case) makes it hard for the two sides to see their common ground.
The reality is that there is no one, well maybe one or two crazies, who are actually pro-abortion. Everyone's perfect world is one where not only do abortions not happen but the cirumstances that lead to them wouldn't exist. What seperates people is how to get there.
Pro-choicers believe the option must be there because abortions will happen legal or not. The proverbial back alley abortion not only kills the infant but also the mother in too many cases. Well I'm sure you know the arguments.
Pro-Lifers believe in the sacredness of all stages of human life. I know the arguments.
I am encouraged to see that Pro-lifers are trying to provide support for new mothers to be. Lack of support is one reason many young women opt for abortion. That support needs to be extensive and last beyond the term of pregnancy for it to be effective. Of course the rhetoric on every child is wanted by someone would sound much more convincing if there were no adoptable children of any age left in government care.
No one can say "lighten up" on an issue like this and I know your position is often an article of faith but I do think that when you turn this into a crusade with people fervently praying in the background you isolate yourself from the majority of Canadians. Not because they are anti-religion but because fanaticism scares people.
That's my two bits.
Wayne Fowler
OK few others contribute so I'm back. This time on euthanasia. I've always believed my life is mine to deal with as I choose. In the past 7 years I have had a direct lesson that has cofirmed my beliefs.
My mother has a form of cancer called multiple myloma. When she was first diagnosed we were told she had no chance of survival beyond 2 years. In her first year of illness mom was in unbelievable pain. What this illness does is attack the bones from the inside. Her spine was cracking apart. There was no position that was commfortable. There was no pain killer short of knocking her out that reduced the pain to a managable level. I have this vivid image of my mother sitting there in excrusiating pain unable to move or do anything. She wanted to die. I wanted to help her.
We got lucky. A treatment became available that has put the cancer into remission although it destroyed my mother's kidneys in the process. She is currently living in a happy and relatively healthy manner.
Now you might see this as an example of why we should hang onto life and hope. I don't. Neither does mom. Mom would like as much life as she can get. I hope for the same thing. But Mom is not willing to put up with that pain ever again. Not even for a couple weeks. Extra life is not worth that much too her. I agree with her.
If the cancer returns she would want to end her life. If she gives me the word I will help. I will not watch my mother go through that again.
Are we playing god? Well someone might as well do so. We were playing god when we took the drugs that stopped the disease. We don't mind playing god to end suffering for additional months that will be a living hell.
How does this post fit with your question? I don't know. I do know that until you can understand why some would make this choice and be able to speak to them in a manner that makes sense to them you will never be able to get through to the growing number of people who believe assisted suicide is a legitimate thing.
Wayne Fowler
Canada's population is ageing fast and senior citizens will outnumber children in about a decade.The projections show that by 2011 seniors would account for 25% of the total population and continue to grow.
The Question I would like to ask my fellow Canadian's is where have all the babies gone?
It's all about ones WORLDVIEW !
The life side wants to promote their values of life and love to the culture.
The only values the liberal minded death side imposes on the baby come in the form of a knife, a vacuum or scalding chemicals.
The values of death and violence to get what they want are thus promoted and imposed on our society.
The liberal minded media ought to go into the abortion clinics and show the people the pictures of the piles of dead babies who are the victims of this culture war.
Why do you suppose they don't ?
The "Religion" of Politically Correct Relativism and Darwinian Humanism in government, law, education and popular media in our culture has made Nazi's of us all.
The ones who don't agree with this agenda get suspended from their employment , get fined or go to jail. Here I am talking about fine teachers like Dr.Chris Kempling . We have become a society with no morality or justice.
Humanism and Communism are both Godless social theories. That is why Humanist Canada gets along so well with Communist China now!
That is why criminals,and those they employ get rich at the expense of their victims of crime and the victims suffer twice. The citizens pay the salaries and pensions of the judiciary, crown prosecutors and court workers.
The judiciary make arbitrary laws based on Humanism instead of the sanctity of human life based on the ten commandments.
We murder our babies by the millions for our convenience and call it abortion.
Unless we as voting citizens of BC decide to do something about our culture and future nothing will change
Real science proves unborn babies are human.
Dr. Nathanson says that real-time ultrasound, which gives a moving picture of the child in the womb; electronic heart monitoring,which detects fetal heartbeats, brainwave monitors,which measure brain activity, fetoscopy,which allows a physician to actually eyeball the baby,simply astounded him.
Such techniques as cordocentesis even allow medical diagnosis,treatment and surgery in utero.
"There was nothing religious about it I finally came to the conviction that this was my patient. This was a person! This was purely a change of mind as a result of fantastic technology."
Dr. Nathanson fastenen an ultrasound machine to a woman undergoing an actual abortion, and produced " SILENT SCREAM",a film that justly horrified the nation. It showed the fetus trying desperately to move away from the vacuum, and then its body parts were successively sucked off. The film produced a massive campaign of defamation agaist Dr. Nathanson from liberal thinkers.
This only made him more determined, so he decided to show an abortion from inside the womb. He attached a camera to a fetoscope and inserted it during a D&E abortion. The resulting film was "ECLIPSE OF REASON".
Abortion is the murder of babies! Please stop killing them Canada!
Godless people don't care,but we must care. What the Humanists have done is given the power over life and death to unelected humanist judges. We are now a Godless Canada. This is certainly not the country our fathers fought for in the great wars.
Lets take it back for our future and out children's.
There are striking parallels between what happened to the unwanted in the Third Reich and what’s happening to the unwanted today!
It is the same kind of mentality. We don’t respect human life and we dehumanize it and then get rid of it !
The Nazis dehumanized their victims by calling them subhuman, non-human, parasites, animals, objects, and non-persons. The same terminology dominates today’s pro-abortion semanticists.
Do you realize that the Nazis “technically” did not break the “LAW” in the Holocaust ? They passed over 400 “LAWS “leading up to the final solution ! Each defendant at Nuremberg invoked the ”LAW” to justify their involvement in the Holocaust. They said they were not responsible.
“WHAT IS LEGAL IS MORAL,” is a frightening slogan used to justify all kinds of atrocities through history.
Legality was used to exterminate natives in Australia, Africa, North and South America, India, the killing of Jews and the destruction of the unwanted today. Legality was also used to justify slavery and the slave trade.
The main term used by the pro-abortion propagandist is the term “CHOICE”. The right to choose.
The main term used by the Nazis to cover up their killing was “SELECTION”. The right to select.
It was the doctors who were making selections in the Nazis death camps.
It is the doctors today, in conjunction with pregnant women, who are making “choices” in the abortion chambers.
The right to select in the past and the right to choose today represents the "evil" power to destroy those who cannot defend themselves.
The whole reason that Nazi Germany came to be is that some took it upon themselves to choose who would live and who would die.
Fertility in 83 countries representing 44 percent of the world's population has fallen below replacement levels,in the developed countries, the net reproduction rate is 0.7 and dropping, which means that the nrxt generation will be only 70 percent as large as this one. As more women are forced into the work-place the fertility rate is dropping more quickly still. As the population ages the ratio of workers to non-workers plunges,and the pressure to kill older people becomes even greater.
Having decided human embryos are merely material for research purposes,we find it impossible to resist so viewing other humans. Having harvested dying babies for their organs,we will begin to harvest dying adults like they do in China. Who do you suppose is buying these from the Chinese?
Biotechnology companies have already blended the ova of humans and pigs. Who would have guessed in 1963 that within a decade,abortion would be normalized,within three decades,homosexuality would be normalized and inposed on public school children,and within three and a half decades,biotechnicians would be crossing livestock with human beings?
Social Conservatives we have to come together politically and win some elections. We must convince the majority of the citizens to join us for a just society and better future for us and our children.
There are 7 billion (almost) people on the planet now. There will be well over 10 before this downward trend can become general enough to lower teh world's population. There are too many people now. We need to continue the downward trend for a long period.
Most of the posters here don't understand much political theory. People bandy the Nazi word around and often equalte it with Liberalism. Liberalism is the opposite of Nazism or any totalitarian system that imposes beliefs on the people.
One poster says there is no difference between the 'Liberal' abortion word choice and the Nazi use of the term selection. That is only true in the most simplistic of understandings. Nazis do not believe in any such thing as human rights. People are entitled to what they can take and your only real loyalty is to the nation. Selection in those terms means the state decides who will be born based upon the needs of the state. Choice as a liberal might use it would mean it is up to the individual person who has the right to chose. Liberalism means individual choice.
Now if I read the conservative posters here correctly they want teh government to impose a law that would force all people to have a child should they become pregnant. So if you decide it is in the nations interest that all people have all babies and individual choice doesn't matter then who sounds more like a Nazi?
That shouldn't be too surprising because if you know the political spectrum you'll know that as Communism is the extreme form of Socialism then Nazism is an extreme form of Conservatism. Liberalism is just extreme in their views of individual freedom.
Wayne Fowler
Regarding the comment immediately above (which was received Nov. 13, 2007):
Whether or not the world is overpopulated is a matter of debate. But to suggest this in the context of abortion and euthanasia--that is scary. Surely we do not want to deliberately destroy human life to help solve an overpopulation problem.
Correction: My comment immediately above was intended to refer to the comment two back by "anonymous.' not the one by Wayne Fowler immediately after it. Now the following comment is intended to refer to the one by Wayne Fowler, two before this one!
Wayne, you define "liberalism" in these words: "Liberalism is the opposite of Nazism or any totalitarian system that imposes beliefs on the people." Now accepting that definition would make it impossible for anyone who believes in democracy to oppose liberalism. But your definition is faulty on two counts. Liberalism arose in the U.K. and continental Europe not in opposition to totalitarinanism but in opposition to monarchial and oligarchichal monopolies of power. Secondly, many conservatives are liberal by the definition of liberalism as it was understood when it arose. But, perhaps in North America particularly, "liberalism" has come to mean something different. Liberalism has left its roots in supporting individual liberty and has become associated with all sorts of radical movemnets which actually seek to restrict liberty in the interests of having government promote their own view.
Editor. You call anonymous' putting forward the idea that there are too many people on the planet as "scary" when made in the context of an abortion, euthanasia debate. It seems to me that it is pretty obvious anonymous was probably refering to other posters who seem afraid that the birth rate in the industrialized world is dropping. The comment probably just means that birthrate decline is needed right now and should not be feared. Getting the world population back down to 5 billion people would probably be prudent.
Wayne Fowler
Ted if you want to believe the proper political science definitions I provided about liberalism makes all democratic people support liberalism your welcome to do so, but you'd be wrong.
Socialists and conservatives are democracy supporters too. However they tend to believe in a higher level of government intervention than classic liberals. Socialists believe unfettered liberal economic freedoms create a division of society based upon wealth. They believe the government must intervene in the economy to ensure that all people have at least an equal chance to share in the wealth. Medicare and public education being examples. Socialists don't mind near total intellectual freedom. Conservatives believe that unfettered Liberal intellectual freedoms makes it impossible to uphold "community standards" and protect society from itself. Many of the concerns shared by conservatives on this site illustrate that. Conservatives on the other hand don't mind Liberal economic freedoms.
However both conservatives and socialists both believe strongly that change must come through democratic means and that means winning people's hearts and minds not beating them into change. Which is why you run this website.
One area you are correct is that most modern liberals accept some aspects of socialist economics and therefore government intervention in the economy, but that has been in decline as far as real action by real world political liberals in the last decade or two.
I recognize that there is lots of variation. Gun control seems to have the left pitching a community rights over individual rights agenda and the conservatives the opposite. But that may be illusory more than reality.
There is also a lot of individual variation in the three sets of values too. The analysis I offer is based upon political theory not real humans in a complex world.
And by the way what is the real difference between "monarchial and oligarchichal monopolies of power" and totalitarianism? How different is "The King is the law" from "Stalin is the law"?
And finally I don't really see any "radical movements" from liberals. Especially the kind that usually govern this country. There are radicals but they are fringe groups on the left and right. I wish the liberals would get a little more radical. It's needed to counter the growth of radical conservatism.
Comment on the article immediately above, which was received and posted on Nov. 22, 2007:
The Encyclopedia Britannica online has this to say in defining liberalism: "political doctrine that takes the abuse of power, and thus the freedom of the individual, as the central problem of government. For liberals, power is most importantly abused by governments, but it may also be abused by the wealthy; by monarchs, aristocrats, and others with inherited authority and privileges; and indeed by any group that has the means and the inclination…"
The funny thing is that conservatives would also say that the abuse of power, especially by governments, is the central problem of government. Your definition, Wayne, of liberalism as being the opposite of Naziism is not valid, and in fact I doubt that defining most things as the opposite of something else is valid. Naziism had many aspects, and so one movement may stand out as its opposite in some aspects; another as its opposite in another.
Monarchical and oligarchical monopolies of power (which were opposed by 19th Century liberals and are opposed by modern conservative democrats) were not necessarily totalitarian. Some monarchies and oligarchies tried to dominate the people more thoroughly than others. I doubt if any were able to do it so thoroughly as modern totalitarian governments with the latest electronic means to control their populations.
You say, "Socialists don't mind near total intellectual freedom." If that was ever true, it certainly does not seem to be true of modern socialists. Try asking them if someone like Dr. Chris Kempling should be allowed to criticize their favourite program in his own time without penalty, and see what they say. I tried asking Sven Robinson. All over the Western world, groups who, I suspect, are mostly socialist are seeking to suppress dissent. Admittedly, people like Tommy Douglas would not, perhaps, have agreed with this modern brand of socialist committed to the agendas of special interest groups.
(Ted--Nov. 22, 2007)
Posting out of order due to technology beyond the knowledge of the editor:
The comment "You call anonymous' putting forward the idea . . ." was actually the last one received, and was posted Nov.23, 2007
Ted I never defined Liberalism as opposite to Naziism. As you say you can't really define anything as simply being the opposite of something else. What I said was that is ultimately what it is. The traditional political spectrum places communism and fascismon the extreme left and right respectively. Liberalism is in the center. More recently political scientists have turned the straight line into a circle that almost brings communism and fascism together. After all either way becomes totalitarian and brutal although the theoretical underpinnings are different. This puts liberalism and communism, liberalism and fascism at opposite sides of the circle. They are opposites because totalitarianism (either form) ultimately cares only about the society and nothing for the individual. Liberalism is about creating a society by all individuals acting freely in their own interests. Liberals accept some needed restraints but not many on individual rights.
Interestingly this also puts socialists and conservatives at nearly opposite sides too. Both believe that there must be a mixture of individual rights and societal rights. What makes us different is our balances are geerally opposite. Socialists want government to regulate the economy to ensure a level of economic equality and conservatives want the government to regulate "morality". I don't mean that to be facetious or nasty if it sounds that way. I'm just struggling to pick the right word.
Yes I agree some socialists are overly sensitive or rude when it comes to debate, but some conservatives are the same way.
As for Mr. Kempling he did not land in hot water for his views. He landed there by offering to use his position as a school councellor to fix homosexuals. I write letters to the editor on all types of issues. I have attacked the Conservative Party and the value of a belief in god, spoken in favour of legalising marijuana and gay marriage. I have run for political office as a candidate for the NDP. What I have never done is use my position as teacher to push my views on my students. I can give both sides of any arguement reasonably well no matter how loathsome I find the position. But Chris Kempling abused his position. He wanted to impose his view on students. I know lots of teachers with his views. They don't get pilloried and they are far from silent.
Wayne Fowler
Wayne Fowler suggested that I got into trouble because I abused my school counselling position to "fix" homosexuals. This is not the case. The school district and the College of Teachers did not present any evidence that I had abused my position or ever dealt improperly with a homosexual student. I actually had a letter of commendation from my principal applauding how I dealt with a transgendered student.
I was disciplined solely because of my point of view expressed on the editorial page. The courts have declared that no "evidence of harm" is required to discipline a teacher, only that they have transgressed in the area of thought crimes. (e.g. I was disciplined for speaking with radio reporter about the orientation change services of my private counselling practice--this was on my Christmas vacation, during an interview in my private office).
As far as "fixing" homosexual teenagers, as a clinical member of NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), we do not believe that therapy for teenagers already practicing as homosexuals is a good idea at all. Thus, alleging that I got into trouble for proposing that is ridiculous. What I did say that that I hoped those who were CONFUSED about what their orientation was, could be helped to resolve their confusion (and I never did have a conversation like that once in my career as a high school counsellor). Given that almost 70% of HIV positive individuals in Canada are men who have sex with men (Health Canada stats), and practicing homosexuals have a lifespan which is up to 20 years shorter than heterosexuals, it is simply common sense for counsellors to advise great caution to confused and impressionable teens.
Dr. Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C.
Registered Clinical Counsellor
Chris, I did go beyond where I should have by making an accusation without sufficiant research. However your remeberances are also somewhat suspect. The entire affair began with the folowing appearing in a published letter written by you: "Sexual orientations can be changed and the success rate for those who seek help is high. My hope is students who are confused over their sexual orientation will come to see me."
That can very easily be read as an offer to change someones sexual orientation. In this statement you associate this change not with your private practice but with students. Hence it seems as if you hoped to use your school position to make this happen. While I think the College of Teachers suspension may have been an over reaction their strong action is about what a teacher would have recieved 30 years ago if they said "they wanted to help students understand their homosexual nature."
It is not that you ever did anything like this that matters; it is that you suggested you wanted to. Just as if I was to say that kids who are confused about the existence of God can be can be helped to avoid the crippling condition of blind faith and I hoped they would come to me about it, I should be held accountable for it.
Wayne Fowler
Counsellors need to be in the position of harm reduction. We know that abortion is negatively correlated with suicide risk, subsequent premature births (and all the related complications like cerebral palsy), breast cancer, emotional problems, and even increased risk of child abuse with subsequent children. We also know that homosexual practices are dangerous to both physical and mental health. I do not apologize for suggesting that school age children could benefit from counselling aimed at harm reduction. The larger question is, why are counsellors who do the opposite celebrated as "open-minded", while those who are genuinely concerned about the long term well being of their students, are punished for suggesting that harm reduction counselling is in their best interests?
My situation is about the stifling of social conservative ideas in order to promote social liberal ideology. And all of society is paying the price.
Chris Kempling
Because Chris you are putting the cart before the horse. True harm reduction would educate the student/person on the risks of harmful behaviours. Being homosexual is not in and of itself a risk.
Certain sex practices are and would be whether practiced by homo or hetro sexuals. Depression and suicide is an obvious consequence of living in a society that condemns and desparages who you are.
Yes, educate kids on risks but identify what the actual risks are first.
These are my thoughts on Abortion and Euthanasia.
Government should be promoting positive social values like those in The Ten Commandments rather than negative ones that kill their future and present citizens.
Murder is wrong not simply because you object to it,but because it violates the Moral Law. All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.
In the case of abortion, the effects are felt by the baby, in some cases by the father, and by the mother who is often misled and must suffer the emotional and physical scars for the rest of her life.
The effects are also felt by innocent people who are victims of crime spawned by our nation's blatant disrespect for life.
This is from FOCUS ON THE FAMILY CANADA
Pro-life groups face growing opposition
Today’s Family News
January 23, 2008
Faced with stringent prohibitions by student leaders, pro-life groups on Canada’s university campuses now see filing complaints with human rights tribunals as “an increasingly attractive option,” the National Post reported last week.
“We’re realizing there’s not much help on university campuses,” said Theresa Matters, executive director of the National Campus Life Network. “The students have tried to talk and reason with the student unions, and they’re just not listening.”
Earlier this month, the Lakehead University Student Union (LUSU) in Thunder Bay, Ontario, voted out of existence the pro-life group Life Support after it refused to comply with a set of rules that were more restrictive than those imposed on other student groups. Life Support had been active on campus for two years.
Matthew Granville, the student union’s vice-president of finance, had reportedly told the group that it would be ratified only if it agreed not to hand out leaflets, put up posters, receive student money, use the university’s name, “[approach] people to tell them about your club and beliefs” or engage in any “unsolicited conversations.”
As LifeSiteNews.com reported, student leaders said the conditions were necessary to “decrease the amount of offence” the group’s stance on abortion would presumably cause other students.
In a written response, Life Support said such restrictions were illegal. “To give a condition that demands our club not to converse with other students about our beliefs as a club,” the group stated, “is not only violating freedom of speech and expression as per Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, Section 2, but is contradicting LUSU’s own policy.”
Calling his group’s treatment “thoroughly discriminatory,” Life Support president Francisco Gomez Jimenez told the National Post that a formal complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission is “probably what’s coming.”
Yet two seemingly contradictory rulings last week by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal suggest that student pro-life groups that go this route might not receive the redress they desire.
In one case, a tribunal member dismissed a complaint filed by a pro-life group at the University of British Columbia Okanagan in Kelowna after judging that it had no hope of success. But in a separate case involving Capilano College in North Vancouver, a different tribunal member allowed the complaint to proceed. Both complaints alleged religious discrimination on the part of student leaders on grounds that pro-life members are mostly Christians and their opposition to abortion is a deeply held religious belief.
In a similar case in November 2006, the pro-life student group at Carleton University in Ottawa was at risk of being denied club status by student leaders. The student association later relented in the face of intense public pressure.
The immediately preceeding comment was posted by an anonymous person passing on an article from Focus on the Family. It should be understood that Focus is not necessarily responsible for reposting this article on this site.
Doctors ought to be healers not killers.
The Dutch experience should be enough to demonstrate the danger of granting physicians the right to kill their patients.Euthanasia would change the nature of the medical profession itself.Physicians would be cast in the role of killers rather than healers.The Hippocratic Oath was written to place the medical profession on the foundation of healing not killing.For 2,400 years patients have had the assurance that doctors would follow an oath to heal them not kill them.The doctor-patient relationship would change with legalized euthanasia.
Medical care would be affected.Physicians would begin to ration health care so that the elderly and disabled patients would not be receiving the same quality of care as everyone else.Legalizing euthanasia would result in less care for the dying rather than better care.Legalizing euthanasia would open the door to anyone wanting the right to kill themselves.Soon as various court precedents begin to broaden the application of the right to die to other groups in society like the disabled or the clinically depresed.
My Dad visited The Netherlands and told me the horrors of his friends,and the "Dutch Experiance".But of course our supreme court justices can be trusted not to have us killed,or can they ?
The maternal instinct was the strongest intuition in the women of Christian Canada and the Western World.
Now in pagan liberal-minded Canada and the pagan liberal-minded Western societies for many women it is sexual pleasure without the responsibility of nurturing their babies. Their CHOICE is murder and Dr. Bernard Nathanson proves this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Where have all the babies gone you ask ? They have been aborted by the millions. The numbers of this holocaust are heart-breaking. Western Culture has lost it’s Character and moral direction.
Our Governor General, Michaelle Jean, presented abortionist Dr. Henri Morgentaler,with The Order Of Canada.
I expected more from a government that calls itself conservative .
Michaelle Jean should see Dr.Bernard Nathanson’s film “Eclipse Of Reason”, then she would know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that abortion is the killing of innocent living human beings, who deserve our protection not capital punishment.
Our judges and educators should know that todays science and technology proves that abortion is the murder of innocent living human beings.
When will this holocaust end in Canada?
Abortion Kills Living Human Beings.Why Are We Doing This In Canada?
Dilation and curettage is commonly called D&C. The physician dilates the cervix with a series of instruments to allow the insertion of a curette, a loop-shaped knife, into the womb. The instrument is used to scrape the placenta from the uterus and then cut the baby apart. The pieces are then pulled through the cervix. The body must then be reassembled by an attending nurse to make sure no parts remain in the womb to cause infection.
Suction aspiration. The mouth of the cervix is dilated. A hollow tube with a knife-like edged tip is inserted into the womb. A suction force 28 times stronger than a vacuum cleaner tears the baby and the placenta to pieces. These pieces are sucked into a container.
Saline injection also known as salt-poisoning. A strong salt solution is injected through the mother’s abdominal wall into the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby then breathes and swallows the solution causing internal poisoning and burning. In a few hours the unborn baby dies from salt poisoning, dehydration, and hemorrhaging. The mother goes into labor and delivers a dead or dying baby.
Prostaglandin involves the use of prostaglandin hormones that are injected into the womb or released in a vaginal suppository. This causes the uterus to contract and deliver the baby prematurely. A saline solution is sometimes injected first, killing the child before birth, in order to make the procedure less distressful for the mother and medical staff.
Dilation and evacuation is commonly called a D&E. The doctor dilates the mother’s cervix and uses forceps to reach into the uterus. He grasps the arms and legs, dismembers the body, and crushes the skull to remove it. The placenta and the smaller pieces of the body are removed by suction and sharp curetting.
Hysterotomy, similar to a Caesarean section. This procedure involves opening the womb surgically and removing the baby to end the infants life.
We ought to put and end to this holocaust. This is what happens in a country where the politically correct Darwinian humanist education establishments institutionalize atheism, because we all go to schools and universities.
I expected more from a Government that calls itself Conservative . Our Governor General Michaelle Jean should see Dr.Bernard Nathanson’s film “Eclipse Of Reason”, then she would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion is the killing of innocent living human beings who deserve our protection not capital punishment.
Our judges and educators should know that todays science and technology proves beyond a shadow of doubt that abortion is the murder of innocent living human beings. Why are they still allowing this killing of innocent unborn babies who deserve our protection not capital punishment?
The living baby in the mother’s womb is a human being; the child is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct genetic code. Preborn children are innocent because they have done nothing wrong. They deserve our protection! Only a Canadian society that has institutionalized atheism through their schools and universities could slaughter their young. Our culture is marked by atheism and ultimate meaninglessness. Our society has lost the objective basis for certainty of knowledge, and are manipulating science according to their own sociological and political desires rather than standing upon concrete objectivity.
Citizens how long will we let this go on?
The National Women’s Party was founded in 1915 by Alice Paul and she authored the Equal Rights Amendment. Aice Paul stated,” Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” There was “no” disagreement among fellow suffragettes.
Susan B.Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared in the weekly women’s paper they published, The Revolution,” No matter what the motive, the woman is awfully guilty who commits abortion. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death, but oh, thrice guilty is “he” who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.”
In a letter to Julia Ward Howe in 1873 Elizabeth C. Stanton wrote ,” When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” These committed women refused to take ads in their newspaper for abortifacients.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton raised a flag to commemorate the birth of each of her 7 children and celebrated each new life publicly. Today Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton would see modern feminists, and our atheist education establishments that promote abortion and educate them this way, as betraying women in the service of men.
The slogan,” It can’t be wrong if it doesn’t hurt anyone” first became popular as a rationalization for sex outside of marriage.
That was over 30 years ago. Now after millions of abortions in Canada, so-called no fault divorces, fatherless and motherless children, sterilization-inducing diseases, broken hearts and troubled minds, perhaps it’s time to stop awarding the Order Of Canada to abortionists like Henry Morgentaler, and reconsider the meaning of "hurt". The Supreme Court, is supposed to be a court, but it has become a Super-Legislature that overrides the decisions of the people. What a travesty. If the Judiciary's, Living Tree Evolving society interpretation of Canadian Law protects same sex adults over the age of 16 now, last year it was 14, engaged in consensual sex,how are we going to outlaw polygamy? The polygamist and all his/her spouses practice,consensual sex. How about incest or pedophilia thats consensual or intergenerational consensual intimacy as the North American Man-Boy Love Association calls it? The slogan of the North American Man-Boy love Association is," sex before eight or else it's to late," and they don't mean 8 o'clock in the evening. Then there is the question of beastiality, and Professor Peter Singer,the text-book writer and eminent bioethicist at Princeton University, argues that animals can consent since consent needn't be verbal.
Are these the kind of people to whom we should entrust ourselves and our children? It ought to matter to Canadian society what people do and call love in the privacy of our countries bedrooms. Don't you?
In a democracy the people are responsible for the laws and policies of the country. When are our people going to become responsible? How much more Judicial and Political Tyranny will they take before they act?
Sept. 10, 12008
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will force all medical personnel to perform abortions or be charged by the so-called Human Rights Commissions. This institutionalized atheism of Darwinian Humanism spread through our Education Establishments and thus to the Legal Establishment , and to the public goes against freedom of moral thinking and speech. Our judges and Legal Establishment with their Living Tree Evolving Society interpretation of Law do anything they want ! The journalists of our popular media who say they stand for free speech don’t on this and many other perversions. This imposed paganism is harmful not only to our children, but Canada and Western Civilization. Many people escaped to Canada from countries like Canada has been educated with this institutionalized atheism to become. Concerned citizens ought to come together and try to stop this. Electing and supporting the proper politicians to stop this is a good idea.
as a 35 year old woman, here are my ideas.
First off, the proaborts are using magical thinking, medieval definitions of "ensoulment", bad science in short.
while i am a Christian, i see this as something that any good people can agree on - that we need to protect the innocent. the science says "zef"s (zygote, embryo, fetus) are homo sapiens. They differ only from the born in four areas
Size
Level of development
Environment
Dependancy
for a better explanation of how to counter these arguments, check outhttp://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7522
As for euthanasia, there is no scientific basis or baseline for the myth of "brain death" - again, bad science.
As for me, i am fighting the culture wars by having a big family (seven so far) and loving every minute of it! Babies are good, birth is nothing to fear so why not live it? - i have also told my people (inlaws and parents)that they have a home with us when they get old, and all my girlfriends know that if they get pregnant at a bad time, they have a home with us as long as they need it, and we will take care of their child to whatever extent they wish. I made a point of talking about this with my girlfriends after one had an abortion. There really are very few adoptable children in Canada - most are hung up in foster care forever while the government waits for their parents to get off drugs (and their childhood ends, still waiting) - at some point, we will probably do foster care or adoption, but not until our children are older, as their welfare is utmost, and we can not promise to never spank as we would have to do to foster right now.
I've just read a great article in CERC, titled 'Presenting the Abortion issue to our children' (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0149.htm) by FATHER FRANK A. PAVONE.
I recommend reading it in order to get a better picture of what is this issue all about.
As far as I am concerned, abortion of pregnancy is murder because is killing a baby, a human being, and individual with dignity and identity before God, his/her creator from conception to natural death and beyond.
Abortion is just the satisfaction of the selfish to avoid responsibility, even in the case of rape, because it is a human being who is innocent under every point and perspective.
The same argument is valid for euthanasia.
Only selfishness stands in the way of reason.
There cannot possibly be any justification for killing or allow the killing to make some people feel better about the course their lives is taking mostly because of their own free choices.
Abortion and euthanasia are murder, period.
Freedom comes does not come along, it comes with responsibility. There cannot freedom if there is not responsibility.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home