Archives for 2009

Look, I’m open to the idea that the mainstream media got the story wrong on this former Planned Parenthood person turned pro-life.

But honestly–this sort of lengthy analysis into how one could not possibly become pro-life? Because it seems too strange to be true? Guess what? It happens. Talk to Bernard Nathanson who aborted his own children, created America’s Largest Abortion Clinic and then…poof. He became pro-life. I read his book which tells his story–called The Hand of God–but as I recall there’s no huge moment where God taps him on the shoulder and says, “Hey, take a look at what you’re doing here.” Nonetheless, pro-life he did become and he changed his ways.

The heart cannot be so easily explained, and I think the story is possible and plausible and will continue to think so until I hear something other than nitpicky, extremely pro-abortion reasons not to.

Must of missed something. Is it Groundhog Day?

On October 29th the Lakehead University Student Union (LUSU) voted 7:6 in favour of banning the campus club, Lakehead University Life Support (LULS). This development occurred after the club had battled with LUSU for over two years and was finally granted club status in March.

Fair treatment of LULS was short lived however as their club status was called into question after a false complaint was made against the club after a clubs day display table event. LUSU never proved that this accusation was true nor did they even attempt to verify its veracity but it played a significant role during the discussion at the meeting.

LULS was denied club status with a motion brought forward by Josh Kolic, LUSU’s VP Finance. Kolic’s justification for taking away their status was that LULS is an “exclusive” club with “extremist views on abortion”.

Maggie Ten Hoeve, LULS President, explains, “We are disappointed yet again in our student union. It is understood that on a university campus ideologies and beliefs will be expressed that may be opposite to others. Instead our student union is anxious to shut down these discussions at the first mention of a false accusation without any investigation.”

The club will be appealing this decision.

Keep on keeping on, pro-lifers at Lakehead. And all the students out there facing extremist student union leaders.

Barbara Kay discusses Steven Fletcher’s earlier op-ed about euthanasia. Here’s where I think she hits the nail squarely on the head:

In short, Mr. Fletcher is living proof that a dedicated support circle and wholehearted commitment to healing within the medical community can lead to a life worth living, even for someone lacking control of his body or bodily functions.

“Bodily functions” is code for a bright line in EuthanasiaSpeak: Control equals “dignity”; no control equals no dignity. The complex caregiving and machinery that sustains Mr. Fletcher’s approximate workaday parity with his peers was designed with the understanding that no life is without value, which is why the attention he received was unconflictedly focused on recovery, however partial.

But through a social lens that sees a hierarchy of value in human life, such single-mindedness is impossible. Although they are too polite to say so out loud, many euthanasia militants, however admiring of Mr. Fletcher’s contribution to society, quietly assess the resources involved in meeting his physical needs and eye his unique mobility apparatus with calculating, even resentful speculation as to how many of their tax dollars are earmarked for someone who is, after all, not living with “dignity.”

Or, as one of our readers astutely put it, “To religious pro-lifers, human dignity has its origins in our being created in the image of God. To the secular, it seems to have been reduced to being able to wipe our own bottoms.”

Speaking as someone who enjoys full control over my bodily functions, I admit this is a part of what we might want to call “autonomous living” that is good. I don’t really want to think about how I would feel if suddenly I needed help in that department. But for crying out loud, is this really the yardstick we should use to measure whether someone’s life is valuable enough to avoid being dispatched for dignity’s sake?

May I bore you with karate stories? Thank you.

This is the time of year at our dojo when brown belts who are scheduled to test for their black belt in late spring start their intensive training. It’s a pretty daunting prospect for most people – unless you’re already an elite athlete used to testing your limits and performing under pressure, the thought of that famously scary black belt test is, well, famously scary. As it should be – we are not, after all, testing our knitting techniques, we are testing the fighting techniques and physical endurance of martial artists. (No disrespect to knitters; there are many challenges in knitting but most do not involve hours and hours of unrelenting physical pain and humiliation.)

I have gone through that long intensive training and scary test twice (once for my first-degree black belt in 2004 and once for my second-degree black belt in 2007). Now I do my best to guide brown belts through theirs. And one way to help them is to remind them, as they begin their intensive training, that what they should keep in mind after 2 or 3 hours of hard karate isn’t how wiped out they feel compared to when they’re fresh, but how great they look for someone who, technically speaking, ought to be face-flat-on-the-floor-dead from sheer exhaustion.

See, it’s all about perspective. If you compare yourself to when you’re fresh, you’ll be miserable and will not enjoy pushing your limits. You may even be tempted to give up (some do, every year) and never get a black belt. But if you compare yourself to someone who ought to be dead, and you’re still standing, then you immediately start feeling better.

Back to euthanasia. If we assume that our life now, as able-bodied adults who are in full control of our bodily functions, is the only kind worth living, we’ll be making a very terrible mistake. Ask Steven Fletcher whether his life as it is now is worth living or not. Maybe we ought to measure the value of “impaired” life (for lack of a better term) as compared to death, not as compared to completely autonomous life.

More from the director of Planned Parenthood in Texas who had a change of heart. This is so interesting, it deserves its own post:

Johnson said she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695. “Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money — we’ve got to keep these abortions coming,'” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “It’s a very lucrative business and that’s why they want to increase numbers.”

_________________________

Brigitte is shocked, shocked: And here I thought it was only heartless right-wing capitalists who were interested in profits above all else.

Gosh, that U.S. health care bill. What a complicated mess. But here’s something I like:

While House leaders are moving toward a vote on health-care legislation by the end of the week, enough Democrats are threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to create a question about its passage.

[…]

“I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation — enough to derail the bill.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast Stupak as “attempting to ban abortion coverage in the private insurance market.”

The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate. Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother.

To be perfectly honest, I get lost in the details, which are not exactly undisputed. But I get this much: There are enough lawmakers opposed to the use of federal funds to pay for abortion to derail Barak Obama’s major health-care reform. I’ll bet you he never saw that one coming.

As you may recall, pro-life students at the UofC had been charged with trespassing on their own campus for having a pro-life display. Those charges have been stayed:

November 2, 2009: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CROWN STAYS CHARGES AGAINST CALGARY PRO-LIFE STUDENTS

CALGARY

The group’s display, held on the University of Calgary campus every semester since 2006, termed the Genocide Awareness Project, precipitated the charges. The display compares abortion to past historical atrocities, such as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Club president Leah Hallman stated, “We are relieved by this decision on the part of the Crown Prosecutor; Campus Pro-Life has consistently maintained that all of our actions were in full compliance under the law. The charges were initially delivered to the homes of several students by members of the Calgary Police Service in February of 2009. On March 16th, all charged members pleaded not guilty. At the time, Hallman argued “We have asked the university several times which of its by-laws, policies, regulations or other authority it relies on for censoring our viewpoint, and have received no answer to date.”

The staying of the charges takes place nearly one year after the November 2008 display on campus that was the catalyst for the charges being laid. “Campus Pro-Life will continue being a voice for the voiceless,” states club treasurer Alanna Campbell. “We hope to continue our activities on campus and raise awareness among the next generation of community leaders.”  

Here’s an easy-peachy way to start your week: Consider why a disabled MP would abstain from voting on Bill C-384, Bloc MP Francine Lalonde’s private bill.

Yes, the bill would provide the terminally ill with more freedom to end their own lives with dignity,” writes Fletcher, 37, in an opinion piece appearing Monday in the National Post.

“But it may also worsen the plight of the severely injured and ill by relieving the pressure on Canadians to come to terms with the more important challenge of providing the level of support required to make living the first choice.”

[…]

“An easy thing to do would be to just say, ‘The bill is flawed and I’m going to vote against it.’ But in the larger context, I think what is being talked about is much more profound. It’s really about, what does it mean to be alive?” he said.

“At the end of the day, I think people should have the ability to choose. However, I also want to challenge Canadians to provide the resources so that people choose life over death.”

Mr. Fletcher’s opinion piece is here. It’s a challenging read, but I encourage you to give it a go. Here is where I think I stand: I don’t encourage suicide, but it’s not like you can stop it with carefully crafted legislation. Society can’t prevent it from happening, any more than it can prevent rape or murder. But contrary to rape or murder, you can’t prosecute and punish those who commit suicide. So to me, talk of bringing foward a “right to die” is just a silly false debate. We all have the “right to die”. Just stop breathing long enough and you’re there.

I oppose euthanasia because to me it suggests that the choice is made by another person than the one suffering. Yes, in some cases loved ones KNOW for sure that their relative would absolutely want to have their life ended. And yes, I realize how wrenching it is to watch someone you love in such a situation and not be able to do anything about it. But that’s life. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

Where I disagree with Mr. Fletcher is when he says:

In sum, what I believe is this: I support the right of an individual to choose to die with dignity. However, for that choice to be genuinely free, and for society to have confidence in that choice, we must know that we are giving the severely injured and ill the support needed to prevent them from losing hope– through the health-care system, social workers, therapy, spiritual counselling, proper insurance coverage (including automobile, and workers compensation) and the like.

I agree with the sentiment, but I cannot possibly understand how such a perfect solution can be achieved. This, in the end, is what makes me oppose euthanasia.