Pro-life member of Parliament Harold Albrecht appeared on Michael Coren’s show last night to discuss the 100,000 flags that We Need a Law placed on Parliament Hill yesterday. It’s a good interview. He also discusses conscience rights of pro-life MPs within his own party, and other parties in the House.
Go visit if you get a chance. It’s powerful. And it’s only up for the day. I think it wraps up about 4 pm.
Visit ARPA’s Facebook photo album here for more images.
“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience and trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.” –Helen Keller
Canadian law regarding pre-born life is such a mess. I hope to dig into this at some point, and go beyond the regular discussions on the Criminal Code.
The “Costco case” demonstrates again how our laws pertaining to unborn children are convoluted and unclear:
A tragic accident that claimed the lives of two children in London, Ont., this past summer has now been thrust into the national spotlight. On July 25, a vehicle driven by Ruth Burger crashed into a Costco, striking a young family. Addison Hall, six, died as a result of her injuries. Danah McKinnon-Bozek, who was eight months pregnant at the time, and her three-year-old daughter Miah Bozek, were also injured. Danah was rushed to hospital for an emergency C-section, but her infant daughter died about a week following the accident.
Ms. Burger was initially charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, but only one count of criminal negligence causing death. Late last week, London police laid an additional charge of criminal negligence causing death, relating to the death of Ms. McKinnon-Bozek’s infant Rhiannon.
The law is clear: Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code states that “a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” This applies to the death of any child who could live outside the mother, even for a brief time.
I hope the family finds some very small measure in comfort in this new charge being laid. In law, their daughter and their loss is being recognized.
Read the rest of Andre Schutten and Mike Schouten’s article here.
I’m really looking forward to seeing this documentary. Andrew Klavan talks about how he’s preparing the movie and shares how he was pro-choice for years. After an argument that he lost to a Catholic friend, he became pro-life.
I think this going to be a powerful (and respectful) movie.
Brian Lilley reports here about 40 Days for Life, a “protest” that involves praying outside abortion clinics.
Just yesterday I learned that if there is any presence of pro-lifers outside an abortion clinic, it decreases the number of abortions. This is something we all want–or should, anyway, and so I’m grateful not just for the people who do 40 Days for Life, but for those who report about it, too.
I read this story first thing this morning. I thought: “Should I post this so people know?” and decided not to. Too sick.
A little later, my 18 year old daughter talked to me about her job, which she loves. She serves at a deli counter. She talked about crazy customers, rude and aggressive. Then she told me about the ignorant comments from some of the men. For example, when referring to how much Kolbassa he wanted, a guy said “the size of my penis”. She also mentioned that the girls would NOT call out number 69. They would wait for the guy in the department to call it out.
Our daughters are in this culture. But I have serious concerns for our sons too. So I posted this. So you know.
During two of my son’s naps today, I read some academic pro-choice philosophy.
I came across some discussion by professors Laurie Shrage and Elizabeth Brake on “forced fatherhood.” They are addressing the pro-choice tension where mothers are free to abort their children, but if children are born, fathers are not free to walk away from the children. They are forced to pay child support. These men are often referred to as “desperate.”
Quote from professor Laurie Shrage’s New York Times’ piece:
Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.
If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.
Let’s keep in mind that this tends to be the same crowd that pushes sex education on younger and younger kids, arguably with age inappropriate materials.
It seems that Sex Ed 101 teaches where babies come from. Babies are conceived via sex. Sex = babies.
[Tweet “Babie are conceived via sex. Sex = babies.”]
If that’s the case and if most people in North America are aware of this fact, how in the world can a man “accidentally” conceive a child?
This can only happen in an abortion-promoting culture where we attempt to separate sex from pro-creation. We all know that no contraception is 100% effective. But what is pretty darn effective is abortion.
And this is what leads to an inconceivable quote like this one:
In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.
Therefore sex no longer leads to babies, or unwanted babies in any case, therefore men and women can become “accidentally” pregnant, bear no responsibility and the child in the womb is killed or, if he/she lives, may have to do without a “desperate” parent who opted out.
The rabbit hole goes down further, but my son is hungry. Off I go.
This article is not about abortion. It’s about India, and why her booms have been busts. But this part interests:
The dystopic details don’t end there. The use of new technology to abort fetuses selectively has led to a rapidly declining female-to-male birth ratio, with a nationwide average of 914 girls per 1,000 boys in 2011, as opposed to 940 to 950 girls in European countries—and with Gujarat, its development such a shining exemplar in the Modi campaign, boasting an average of 891 girls in 2011, among the lowest such numbers in India. At the same time, India—and especially in states like Gujarat—is a growing provider of rent-a-womb services for wealthy European and North American couples.
Of course, this is the result of an abhorrent bias/hatred against women. Were abortion not available, infanticide through exposure like in First Century Rome would likely be the means to rid our world of women. But abortion access facilitates these deaths. I don’t think you can get away from that fact without jamming your head pretty deep in the sand.
…But deciding what a woman must think–now that is totally kosher.
Really ridiculous for Justin Trudeau to tweet this, that the days “when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone.” Apparently the days of dictating thought are here to stay?
I hope people realize what is happening here, and it has nothing to do with abortion in particular. Freedom of thought is at stake. For this great freedom, my parents left their home and came to this country. Not so someone could tell them what we must believe in order to be “progressive.”