ProWomanProLife

A great article about the Philadelphia “house of horrors.” The author is one Lea Singh, who I happen to know. (After all, how many pro-life Czech Canadians are there in Ottawa?) She highlights the obvious schizophrenia which has us declaring that the same action (killing babies) is in one circumstance abortion, ergo, acceptable, and in another, is murder, ergo, punishable by law.

She also asks where each one of us is at in this current social climate. Do we turn a blind eye? Have we braced ourselves to struggle through what we believe on this issue? Are we prepared to think things through to the point that we would reject abortion outright, and say so, whatever chance we get?

I often ponder how our children’s children will judge us. They would have every right to say we sanctioned barbarism.

This is not a guilt trip, by the way. Many of my readers are passionately engaged in some struggle, and no one person can be engaged in every struggle. But just because I am not an advocate against, oh let’s just insert a random example, human trafficking, doesn’t mean that when the subject comes up I justify why/how/when/how often it occurs. I don’t cast aspersions on the idea that human trafficking is wrong.

That’s the weird thing about abortion: that otherwise conscious folks, concerned about the world around them, can so easily adopt the propaganda of the pro-choice side.

So rise up, people! Consider the facts of the matter and worry less about the ramifications of your actions! Enjoy the idea that you are taking a stand. Live a little! This means doing what is right, not ensuring you get the appropriate job, at the appropriate time, followed by the appropriate pension. (Yawn…..)

Speaking up for the truth might make us look like fools. And that is just the beginning. Today, it is a sad fact that opposing abortion can cost a person their job and even their career. You might also lose your friends, your standing in a social circle, your invitations to events. One day, your position on abortion could even cost you your freedom.

To me, as a former political refugee from Communist Czechoslovakia, all this sounds eerily familiar. Back then, most people in our country were also silent, and many feared the repercussions that would follow if they openly opposed the regime. But we had a few dissidents, and they made a world of difference. One of them, Vaclav Havel, eventually became the first president of a free Czechoslovakia.

The truth is a powerful thing; over time, throughout history, it has always won the moral battles, and I have no doubt that one day, abortion will be rejected and recognized as an unspeakable evil. Until that day comes the journey continues to require courage and sacrifice on the part of those who carry the responsibility of knowing the truth. It is up to us to awaken the conscience of our society, one person at a time.

David Warren writes in the Ottawa Citizen about Linda Gibbons as a modern-day hero:

A beautiful column by Father De Souza about Bernard Nathanson’s conversion first to life, and then to Roman Catholicism:

Nathanson was an atheist Jew. Yet after reading deeply in philosophy and theology, and after witnessing the sacrifices of pro-life activists for “a constituency that is (and always will be) mute and invisible,” he began to entertain the idea of God.

I really like this:

At the threshold of eternity, one trusts that now Bernard Nathanson sees not the terrifying vision of the damned, but rather, as Dante concludes the Inferno, the “Love that moves the sun and the other stars.” That Love moves not only the immensity of the universe; it moves too the tiny baby in the womb.

Read it in full, here. An excerpt to whet your appetite:

CMAJ: In the last 15 years, amniocentesis has allowed us to diagnose genetic disorders in utero. These include neural tube defects such as spina bifida, metabolic disorders such as Tay Sach’s  disease and chromosomal abnormalities such as Down’s syndrome. Do you believe that selective abortion for eugenic reasons is a desirable option?

Morgentaler: Yes, I do. I believe that if a couple has to choose and if they want to have one or two children, they would rather have a normal child than a child with a defect. If. amniocentesis  shows  Down’s syndrome, which severely limits the ability of this child to enjoy life or to have a normal human life, it is obviously much better for the parents to decide that “we are going to  abort this embryo and have another pregnancy where we can look forward to having a normal child”. I think amniocentesis is one of the scientific means now available which permits couples to make intelligent decisions as to whether a particular pregnancy should continue or not. Eugenic reasons are very important.’

Bernard Nathanson has passed away at the age of 84. Initially one of the founders of the abortion rights movement in the USA, his conversion to becoming a supporter of the pro-life cause was an amazing turn around for someone so embedded in the abortion world. It would be as if Henry Morgentaler changed his mind tomorrow. He is also the doctor who said they made up the numbers of women dying from unsafe abortions, as they did with the numbers of women undergoing illegal abortions. I remember reading his autobiography, The Hand of God and thinking how mundane his change of heart was… there were no bolts of lightening, no visions from on high. He (as I recall, it’s been a while since I read the book) basically realized one day he couldn’t deliver babies on one floor of a hospital and kill them on another.

A life story of redemption and courage.

_________________________

Brigitte adds: His documentary, The Silent Scream (warning: graphic) was an important turning point for me. I used to be against abortion, but this film made me want to do more – in particular help Andrea launch and maintain this website. I challenge every pro-choicer to watch it.

I would very much love it if a man brought forward a human rights complaint that he is being denied an abortion. I’m pretty sure they’d hear it:

Here we go again: Henry Morgentaler has been nominated in the Globe and Mail as a transformational Canadian. Nominations are open until November 26, so I’d suggest pro-lifers get in there and nominate many, many more, lest Morgentaler actually be chosen.

Morgentaler did transform us, I suppose. He popularized the idea ”of expendable human lives” and ”turned this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned have the right to live.” (Paraphrased from Dr. Jefferson) He made it possible for women to use abortion as birth control, whilst denying them fundamental information about the baby and what abortion does to women. And he transformed us with his obstinate pride (when he was received into the Order of Canada, he said “he deserved it”–quite an acceptance speech) and his strange poetry. Transformational, indeed.

_______________________

Jennifer adds:  Ugh! The quote in bold on the left just ruined my day…
“Were every child a wanted and loved child, the world would be a substantially better place.” So then it’s our job to love them all then isn’t it? I’m loving some right now… get to it people!

Symbolic of where abortion registers for the mainstream media (it doesn’t), this report about Steve Fonyo Jr. having his Order of Canada revoked ends this way:

The Order of Canada can be terminated when a recipient has been convicted of a criminal offence, the person’s conduct departs from recognized standards of public behaviour or they have been sanctioned by a professional organization. Other Canadians whose Order of Canada has been terminated include former NHL Players’ Association head Alan Eagleson, after he was convicted of fraud, and lawyer T. Sher Singh, whom the Law Society of Upper Canada disbarred after finding him guilty of professional misconduct. There are calls for others to have their orders revoked, including jailed media baron Conrad Black and disgraced Livent founder Garth Drabinsky.

It strikes me as obtuse that whoever wrote this failed to mention the obvious distress of many, many Canadians when Henry Morgentaler received the award. I suppose, however, that we need more time before Morgentaler’s behaviour is recognized as deviating from recognized standards. I maintain that we will recognize his “contribution” to Canadian society as abuse in due course, but we’re not there yet.

PWPL got started just over a year ago to remember today’s anniversary and to say clearly that Morgentaler is no champion of women’s rights. Here’s a short YouTube clip to get you better acquianted with the man himself.

Look, it’s not, in my opinion, particulary great poetry. So I’m not going to spend tons of time delving into inner meanings. But given what Morgentaler has spent his life doing–I think it’s worth noting that he himself seems pretty conflicted over the whole business of who women are, and his relationship to them. Still want to read the book Morgentaler, A Difficult Hero–we disagree on the “hero” part; it’s the “difficult” part I’m interested in.

h/t Flaggman’s Canada

________________________

Brigitte is shocked, shocked: The clip ends with the host starting to explain that the book is self-published. With a straight face… The guy deserves an award.

The Globe and Mail of all places had an interesting exchange on abortion between Ian Brown, who has written about his struggles with his son’s disabilities before, and Jean Vanier, who has also been awarded the Order of Canada for his work.

I am less interested in Ian Brown’s points, if only because he is basically asking a question of Jean Vanier: How could he keep his Order of Canada? (Brown expresses discomfort with abortion, especially the kind that would see his son killed in the womb but then says he can’t get away from a woman’s choice. I would merely suggest “choice” is not a value. “Faith, hope, love and choice, and the greatest of these is choice”? Um, not really.)  

I read Vanier’s thoughts closely. I first read them with sadness and then, as I began to consider them more, with a sense of respect–finally, I came around and thought–this is a type of pro-life discourse that could bring even the uninterested Globe reader around. It is, in the end, pro-life discourse.

In his letter, Vanier says he is keeping his Order of Canada. He doesn’t say abortion is wrong, or evil. There’s also a fair amount of mundane “motherhood and apple pie” statements.

He gets at what make this country great:

It is important that we re-find this identity, that we encourage the young of our land (in whom we should have much hope) to discover the beauty of being Canadians with our own specific culture – peacemakers, people who give life, who become a sign that peace is possible in our world; to discover that our land is called to be a place of welcome not just for wealthy and competent people from other lands but also for refugees, for people from war-torn and poverty-stricken lands.” (emphasis mine)

In short, he is saying that Canada should be a place where the unwanted are welcome. (Even unwanted babies, one could add. )  

He speaks of the sexual urge that “flows from a deep cry of loneliness.” There are few who sleep with someone for the cheap thrills, rather, it is because people are lonely. We all want to be known. We want companionship. And having a baby may be the furthest thing from our minds…

I really agree with him that loneliness is a terrible driver, both of sleeping with someone who doesn’t know you, not really, and then subsequently having an abortion. “And then too often,” he writes, “we see the shame, anger and despair of a woman who finds she is becoming a mother… her anguish makes her seek an abortion.”

I can see this.

“I do not want to say such a person in anguish is a ‘killer’. I would like to walk with her—maybe cry with her.”

Sure, and that’s the point of PWPL. Though I do think I’d like to prevent her from killing, while walking and crying with her. But still, I see his point.

Then he writes, “so we are not in front of something which is either ‘abortion’ or ‘not abortion,’ ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice.’ We are in front of something so much more complex.”

Pro-lifers are in this habit of saying abortion is not complicated, it is all so very simple. They are right, because abortion takes a life, and that is simple. And pro-choicers are in this habit of saying it is all very complex—and they are right, because that is how it feels to the people involved–there are many factors driving her to the clinic.

He then says:

Maybe the real question is: What is the meaning of our life? What does it mean to be human?”

Aha. And that is indeed a good question. I happen to believe if more women asked this, and more people responded appropriately, with encouragement, then we’d see more and more women empowered to “choose life” (understanding that we’d rather not choose killing as a routine course of action). (Too many women in the moment of a crisis are not asking big, philosophical questions, but rather the detailed short-term ones. Can I afford this? Can I finish school? Will he stick around? Do I want him to? etc.)

Anyway, Vanier’s life is compelling, compassionate, and if he doesn’t want to fall into all the ancient, unproductive and shrill rhetoric from both camps—then TRUST ME–I’m AOK with that.

On the notion of keeping the Order of Canada, he says the Order should go to those who “give and foster life.” Vanier sounds like a smart man—he must know that’s not what Morgentaler does. In that sense, he is keeping his Order of Canada perhaps so the Order is not devoid of those who do great things: give and foster life.

I don’t agree, I’d give mine back pronto. (If I had one.) But I see his point—Canada is a great country, and if we have such honours then they might as well be peopled by great men (and women). (Put your knickers back on, my feminist friends, it’s a turn of phrase).

Morgentaler should be the one to go. In due time, I believe he’ll be removed, as we hang our heads and reassess a time in Canadian history where we did not make room, we had no time–for those we chose to call “unwanted”.