ProWomanProLife

A poll of Canadian values presented at the Manning Centre conference did surprise me, but here you go, these are the results:

On moral issues, Canadians are more socially conservative than most of us would be led to believe. 89% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement “nothing is more important than family.” 67% strongly agreed that, by definition, “marriage is between a man and a woman.” And 60% strongly agree that abortion is morally wrong.

At the same time, only 31% feel government should play a major role regulating individual behaviour and morality, and there is a pretty even split (46%:50%) on the role of government in preserving the moral fabric of society.

After everything was over at the conference, I went out with a family friend. I told him about the poll. He scoffed and immediately, and much to my embarrassment, took a poll of one by asking the waiter if he agreed that marriage should be between one man and one woman. To which the waiter replied, “No (pause) and if I did I wouldn’t tell you.”

But perhaps he would tell a pollster anonymously? Anyway, interesting results.

In our abortion-friendly culture, “pro-life” information tends to be suppressed. A great column in the Post today about how abortion harms maternal and infant health:

Why has Poland made such strides in improving both maternal and infant health? Certainly not by spending a lot of money on “reproductive health services,” to use the preferred euphemism. Poland is a poor country, much poorer than either Canada or its immediate European neighbours. The money simply isn’t there for any lavish program to improve maternal and infant health. The only change that could have produced such a dramatic improvement is the documented decline in the induced abortion rate.

This is one of those difficult situations where telling the truth strikes people as lies, because we’ve all believed a lie for so long. That lie being that abortion helps and protects women.

______________________

Just noticed this: Another thoughtful letter on women’s health as it pertains to abortion abroad, this time, looking at El Salvador.

CBC Radio 1’s arts, culture and entertainment magazine Q is advertising a debate on the upcoming Super Bowl’s pro-life ad. Now, I am not naive enough to believe that the outcome of this debate will somehow support the broadcasting of said ad. Although you could potentially support freedom of expression without supporting the anti-abortion sentiment. I mean, it is theoretically possible. You know, along the lines of Voltaire’s attributed:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Anyhow. Q is having a debate and a debate suggests debaters. Does this mean that someone on the CBC will support the broadcasting of the pro-life ad, thus challenging everything pro-abortion? It remains to be seen. Come on CBC, astonish me! Looking forward to hear it.

Lorne Gunter has a column about the abortion/breast cancer thing Andrea mentioned earlier. Personally, I’m not all that excited. I find that being afraid of getting breast cancer is not exactly a stellar reason to choose not to abort a pregnancy, and besides, it’s not right to scare people with risks that appear to be (if I understood correctly) fairly small. But there is a but. Two, actually.

One: If there is a reasonably good reason to believe that a procedure might increase certain risks (cancer, depression, etc.) and/or have undesirable side effects, it simply is wrong not to mention those risks and side effects and make sure the patient understands them before performing the procedure. If relevant information is suppressed, the choice can’t be free.

Two: If we decide that low risks of getting cancer are not worth mentioning, then maybe we could lay off the double standard and give smokers a break. As Lorne says:

There is plenty of hypocrisy in this, too. Second-hand smoke increases non-smokers’ risk of lung cancer by less then 20%, even with prolonged, heavy exposure. That’s about half the apparent increased risk of developing breast cancer from having an abortion. Yet governments have passed all sorts of laws shielding the public from secondhand smoke at work, the arena, the mall and the stadium.

I don’t want laws banning abortion. I just want people to stop treating abortion as though it were as simple and consequence-free as brushing your teeth in the morning.

Peter Stockland has a fine piece on euthanasia, and the “need” to debate whether it should become “part of standard medical practice”.

As a defender of free speech, I would never oppose such debate. I would argue only that the ordained answer must be short and sweet: No. Or, for those who want a more prolonged response: Never.

A story about pro-life clubs on campuses being shut down or otherwise curtailed.

In May last year, the Canadian Federation of Students—representing 500,000 students from 80 campuses—passed a motion encouraging members (including the UVic society) to deny resources and club status to “anti-choice organizations” and promising financial support should that result in legal action. But conflict over whether student unions have the right to shut down anti-abortion clubs has long simmered on campuses across the country. The student association at Capilano University was ordered to grant status to a pro-life club after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found pro-life students had been victims of discrimination. Student unions at McGill, Guelph, Lakehead, York, Carleton and other universities have also attempted to shut clubs down. And in 2008, the University of Calgary charged student members of a pro-life club with trespassing after they refused to remove graphic images from campus.

Because Linda Gibbons will spend it in jail. Lifesite News is asking people to help encourage her by sending a Christmas card. I’m going to do that.

Linda prayerfully and quietly witnesses in front of Ontario abortion clinics, in violation of an unjust “bubble zone” law.

I wasn’t around when the bubble zone laws were created. I believe they are unnecessary today and are an infringement on our freedoms. I have further heard that Linda Gibbons herself is a peaceful lady. (We might be less inclined to sympathize with an angry protestor, shouting women who go for abortions down. That wouldn’t change the facts of the case–that these laws are not just–but in any event, I’ve heard Linda is a sympathetic lady.)

So send her a card if you can. There’s rules (see link) on what she can and cannot receive in jail. What a world we live in.

McGill’s Choose Life had their club status indefinitely revoked yesterday by the SSMU.

The motion, which passed by a vote of 16-7, stipulated that the “Student Equity Committee work with Choose Life to draft a document for Choose Life on how to abide by SSMU’s Constitution, By-laws, and Policies, which will be adopted by Choose Life.”

Maybe it will be a behavioral chart that will work on a smiley face basis. Perhaps double-smiley face stickers will be awarded when Choose Life quietly heeds to the temper tantrums of those who believe freedom of speech comes with strings attached.

They would be good to remember: “We must bring ourselves to realize that it is necessary to support free speech for the things we hate in order to ensure it for the things in which we believe with all our heart.” – Heywood Campbell Broun

…A student in Wiarton, Ontario is put in seclusion so that others won’t see her pro-life protest.

School principal Pat Cavan confirmed the protest could not be allowed under school policy, which prevents any group from spreading one-sided information on any religious, political or other contentious subject. “School property is not a public place,” Cavan said. “So while absolutely we support the right to free speech in a public space, that’s not school property.”

No one-sided information allowed! What the student needed to do then, was be pro-life for half the day, and pro-choice for the other.

Canada falls on a freedom of the press ranking. Court challenges, HRTs, a difficulty in getting information from the government contributed to the drop.

Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, says reporters all over the country are having trouble prying even the most basic information from the federal government.

Access to Information requests at the provincial level have also become punitively expensive. Bad news.