Anonyme

Please mark your calendars for the National March for Life in Ottawa, coming up May 10th, 2012!

The March for Life is a wonderful occasion to stand up and be pro-active in your defense for human life. For those that have not attended before, the event begins with a mass at 10am in English or French.

At noon, everyone gathers on Parliament Hill and at 1:30pm we will begin the March through downtown Ottawa. This year there will also be testimonies from post-abortive woman (Silent No More Awareness Campaign). For more information and to see the promotional video please click here.

Please tell your friends and family about this important event, we need your support and look forward to seeing you there! Also, for Montréal residents, keep an eye out as we will be welcoming Father Boquet, president of Human Life International, to speak at events in Montreal in the days preceding the March for Life. More info on these exciting events will follow. 

Shocking news: Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, claim that the killing of newborns may be justifiable on the grounds that the newborn is only a ‘potential person’ and may disrupt the lives of his parents. 

Whoa...Hold on! Does anyone really take these ethicists seriously? I sincerely hope not, because that confirms that we are really going crazy. How can anyone claim that the newborn is not a person? This idea not only is wrong and defies all philosophical and scientific reasoning- it is an incredibly dangerous idea, capable of annihilating all unwanted children and justifying infanticide based on social or economic reasons. Such proposals profoundly threaten the safety of our world and put in jeopardy all human lives.

Upon reading such an outrageous article, it is necessary that we emphasize again our stance that from conception, a new human life begins. Life from conception is the only justifiable position; every other position arbitrarily invents the point where human life begins in order to suit personal, egotistical desires.

Giubilin and Minerva believe that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.” --This is ludicrous. Now we are discussing making homicide acceptable under certain circumstances…isn’t homicide a crime? I am sure that the abortion movement caused just as much shock when it began…and now look where we are: legal abortions almost everywhere. Please, please, let us make sure that such “after-birth abortions” (i.e., INFANTICIDE) do not ever become legal, under any circumstances.

I fear for our future and really hope the Pro-Life movement gains strength over the next years. We need to face the horrors of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide with faith and courage. We need to help people understand the extreme dangers of the gradual manipulation and distortion of the definition of human life.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0VVFc4lJqKA

Currently, in Prince Edward Island, several young adults are campaigning to win a $1,000 regional youth leadership award. The two leading candidates at the moment are Kandace Hagen and Tara Brinston.

Hagen’s mission is to provide free access to abortion for women in P.E.I. because currently women must leave the island for abortion services. Hagen says “we are fighting for a reproductive right that we have as Canadians – a right that Island women do not have full access to yet.”

The problem with abortion is that is not a reproductive issue, it is a human rights issue. Many atheists agree that abortion is an injustice (please see Feminists Choosing Life & Confessions of a pro-life atheist if you are interested in non-religious pro-life arguments). The right to life of the unborn child is greater than a woman’s right to her own body because from conception, a new life is formed, and it is clearly identifiable as separate from its mother’s body.

Hagen talks about “reproductive justice”, but what does she mean by this? In her video, Hagen does not once mention the huge controversy that surrounds abortion- she seems to take it for granted that because abortion is offered in all other Canadian provinces, people should support her in providing abortion in P.E.I. The problem is that many of us are unhappy with the state of abortion in Canada, and wish to see laws placed on restricting abortion. Why? - Because abortion is an injustice towards the unborn child. We are slowly starting to see the bitter fruits of this tree: sex-selective abortion (i.e., sexual discrimination all over again). Every year, there are far more baby girls aborted than baby boys. How is this creating a more just, loving society?

The idea that abortion should be offered to women in Prince Edward Island is reflective of what Plato called the “dictatorship of the majority.” It is flawed reasoning to believe that because women in other provinces have access to abortion, P.E.I. should provide access to abortion too. This is like claiming that since polygamy is legal in other countries, it should be legal here too.

Ask yourself: Is abortion really making the world a better place? Or should we orient our efforts to helping the poor and people with disabilities, as candidate Tara Brinston emphasizes?

There is so much work to be done to improve society- starting with eliminating violence, pornography, child prostitution, abuse, and providing better services to the mentally and physically ill. Has government-spending in the abortion industry really led to greater happiness and peace? Be honest with yourself. Anyone that has lived at least 10 years can see that the world is suffering from sexual perversity, lack of fidelity, sexually-transmitted disease, broken marriages, and wounded relationships.

Please make your choice: Vote for whoever you think will make the world a better place. This pledge isn’t about women’s access to abortion- this pledge is about making the right decision for all members of society, including unborn children, the most vulnerable members of society. As Tara Brinston says, "I want to live in a world that is welcoming and accepting, a world that celebrates diversity"--- well, so do I.

Last night the 40 Days for Life Vigil in Montréal began with a kick-off event in Park Lahaie. A group of about 15 people attended, and we alternated between prayer meditations in French and English. We were lucky to have fairly mild weather; after singing ‘Amazing Grace’ in the unity of Christ, we walked over to the nearby Convent where we shared some good food and conversation.

During this event, our president, Georges Buscemi, was interviewed by Barry Morgan on CJAD. A few of the callers posed questions on whether there are exceptions to our position on abortion, what to do in cases of rape, and whether the emotional content of a woman’s pregnancy should be a factor in deciding to keep the child or abort it. To listen to Georges Buscemi’s interview on the Pro-Life position, please click here.

And finally…many thanks to the people that came out last night! We hope to see more of you in the near-future at Park Lahaie (30 St. Joseph Blvd), anytime between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., 7 days a week.

Last week, a bill establishing a “federal framework for suicide prevention” passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 285 to three. This bill would require that the Canadian government spread greater suicide awareness, make data on suicide and its risk factors available to the public, and promote the use of research studies in treating and preventing suicidal behavior.

My question to you today: if the government of Canada acknowledges that suicide is wrong and must be prevented, how can euthanasia ever be right?

I am glad to hear about Bill C-300, and I hope that greater measures to help people with suicidal tendencies and educate society about suicidal behavior will be underway. Canada is already losing 3,600 lives a year to suicide- we cannot afford to lose more here in Quebec by legalizing euthanasia. I am fusing the discussion of suicide and euthanasia because they are essentially the same thing. Both suicide and euthanasia involve the individual’s “choice”; in both cases, the individual wants to terminate his or her life due to some dire circumstance; and the end result of both actions is the irreversible death of an individual.

Now, I wish to ask a question to euthanasia advocates: At which point, and after how much suffering, should a person be assisted in taking their own life? Furthermore, how do we cut the line between mental and physical suffering? Derek Humphry, author of the book “Final Exit” and promoter of euthanasia, admits the following: “I believe that assisted suicide for the mentally troubled will eventually be available in perhaps 50 years when we know more about the human mind, and when society has a more enlightened view on choices in dying in general.” Yet, Humphry’s statement is contradictory with his own views, for he emphasizes that he refuses to support assisted suicide for the mentally troubled on the grounds that poor mental health can be treated and most people would not be comfortable helping a mentally-ill person kill themselves (for a complete list of Humphry’s 9 arguments against euthanasia for the mentally ill, click here).

Let me stop here and tell you a little anecdote:

The other day, I saw something crazy…there was a couple fighting at a metro station, and at one point the man (who was on the opposite side of the tracks as the woman) went down the stairs to place himself on top of the railway lines. I was in panic when I saw that- my heart started racing at the possibility that a train would come any moment, but my first reaction was to call for help- a security personnel, the police, or someone who would protect this man from killing himself. I realized that if he didn’t move I would have to go get him myself. Thank God this man picked himself up and returned to the platform before the train arrived! I still don’t know what I would have done otherwise.

This reaction resembles the way we should respond to someone who seeks to accelerate his own death, whether assisted by a physician or not. Many of us will one day or another face very difficult situations – at such times, we can be led to believe that our life has no value, that things can only get worse…but if everyone feeling hopeless or depressed is given the “right” to physician-assisted suicide, what will our society turn into? Part of being human means accepting weakness, sadness, and fear as we confront the uncertainty of the future. It is through solidarity with others that we are able to deal with these difficult conditions and gather the strength to face them.

Euthanasia would enable a ‘system’ for eliminating pain- something that sounds good on the surface, but is totally unsustainable in reality. All of us, at some point, will have to face death. We can hope and pray for a peaceful and painless death- but we are not guaranteed that. Now, as we approach death or are made victims of mental or physical disease, it is normal to want to give up- but God wants us to hold on and understand that if he has kept us alive and breathing it is for a good reason. In friendship and communication with others, we can discover that reason for living, that motive to hold on and heal from suffering. I would like you to pause for a moment and think to yourself: what makes a life “meaningful”? What brings us happiness? I am young, but from what I’ve experienced so far, part of the beauty of life comes from persevering amidst difficulty. Some of my greatest moments of joy have been tending my hand to someone right when they need it. When someone thanks you for being there for them in the times they had most difficulty, cherish that moment, for it means you are following in Christ’s footsteps.

Let us all remember that God determines life and death….we do not have the power to create life, and we do not have the permission to cause someone’s death (if only everyone could understand this when it comes to abortion too!) We are living in a society that gradually seeks to eliminate all suffering, pain, and responsibility. Do we want to become part of a society that sees life as a nuisance and burden rather than a gift? I read an interesting article today that shared the following small piece of insight from a book by P.J. O’Rourke:

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is, as the prefix indicates, that we’re in favor of living. We consider people — with a few obvious exceptions — to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, clothe them, pick up the trash after their rallies on the National Mall, and make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

 Euthanasia is unacceptable, most of all because we live in an age where we are constantly making medical advances and discovering new methods to help people with various physical and mental ailments. We learn more about the human mind and body everyday- amidst such progressive scientific development, how can we make the case that human life is not valuable in all circumstances, even the most difficult ones? Let us stay firm and strong in our resolution to refuse the legalization of euthanasia. With the crime of abortion already infiltrating society, our duty to defend life from conception to natural death has become even more important and urgent.

I hope to never see euthanasia legalized in Canada (or elsewhere). Meanwhile, the 40 Days for Life Vigil begins tomorrow- please remember to pray for the end of abortion throughout the Lenten Season in the hopes that Christ will soften the hearts of those promoting the unjust killing of children and other members of society.

I would like to recommend the following website : http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/. In particular, I would like to point out the large-spanning, comprehensive review that Canada Silent No More has put together regarding the mental and physical effects related to legal abortion. The ‘Facts and Stats’ section of the website, at first glance, is daunting and discouraging. However, it is important to note that these discomforting figures represent the truth about the terrible effects abortion can have on women. Given that many people base their decisions on ‘what the research shows’, it is impressive to see that an organization has devoted the time and energy to sift through a massive pile of research studies in order to inform women on various mental and physical effects of abortion.

When it comes to counseling women who are debating an abortion, I believe the best approach is to offer love, support, understanding, and resources (both emotional and financial, whenever possible). Nonetheless, attention also must be drawn to the scientific evidence that warns against abortion. The medical community cannot continue to shun its eye from the negative impacts of abortion. Many pro-choicers claim that pro-lifers are inventing the idea of a “post-abortion syndrome”…but if that’s really the case, why do numerous scientific studies show us otherwise? If the risk of breast cancer doubles after one abortion, and a 1997 government study from Finland showed that “women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term”, shouldn’t women considering abortion be at least notified of these disastrous health consequences?

Let me re-iterate: the abortion debate is fundamentally about the life of the fetus. What we are defending, here at Quebec Life Coalition, is the unborn child’s right to life and protection. In addition to killing the lives of children, abortion also destroys the lives of many women (and men). In sharing the cited studies on http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/, what I seek is to spread greater awareness of the evils of abortion- but the primary wrong of abortion is that it kills a new human life- the fact that it hurts so many women too reveals the aftermath of actions that go against God’s love for all of us.

The idea that contraception lowers abortion rates seems like a nice idea for Liberal leaders...but it doesn't seem to map out that way in reality. According to the recent New York Times article "The ‘Safe, Legal, Rare’ Illusion" by Ross Douthat, liberal states do not do better than conservative states in preventing teenage pregnancy. On the contrary, abortion rates are frequently higher in liberal states than conservatives states (the author cites that in New-York, two in five pregnancies end in abortion). 

Is it worthwhile to rethink social policy? Most people agree that they would like to see abortion rates go down...so, what is the best approach? I recommend this article- though it isn't big on statistics, it is published in a popular left-winged newspaper and nonetheless makes the case that maybe conservatives who advocate a return to family values, marriage, and chastity are not as "crazy" as many think. Finally, if lack of access to contraceptives is not the main reason for the number of children aborted every year, shouldn't we be thinking whether the current model of sex and pregnancy is to blame (not to mention the flawed view of the human dignity of the unborn child)? 

How do we live a life of freedom, self-giving, and love? How is it possible to grow from self-centeredness to self-sacrifice? For any of you interested in discovering the answers to these questions, I recommend Christopher West's upcoming presentation. Christopher West will be coming to Montréal from May 18th to May 21st, 2012 (open to all young people age 18-35).

I attended a Christopher West talk last year and found it particularly compelling and insightful. In defending life from conception to natural death, we need to have a solid understanding of what it means to be free and to make choices.

God has given us all the great gift of freedom, but as stated in 1 Corinthians 6:12 (NIV), "Everything is permissible for me - but not everything is beneficial."

I hope this speech by Christopher West will enlighten all young people seeking to discover the path to freedom and love. Don't forget to register before March 1st! 

To all those of you who honestly believed (or were shocked) by the Guttmacher Institute’s finding that « 98% of Catholic women use contraception », rest assured, this research does not fall into the category of reliable scientific research. Let’s take a look at several of the problems with their inclusion and exclusion criteria…

The survey was limited to women who are: 

(a) between 15 and 44. The White House and the Guttmacher Institute both assert that 98% of “Catholic women” “have used” contraception. But the data are restricted to the subset of women aged between 15 and 44. It tells us nothing about the views of women between 45 and 100. Is the White House implying that they do not count?

(b) sexually active. Why aren’t women who are not sexually active included? Presumably a proportion of Catholic women are single by choice and are observing the Church’s teaching. Don’t they count?

(c) not pregnant or post-partum. According to the report, “14% of married women are pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant”. We aren’t informed what proportion of women are married, but it probably shaves a few percentage points off the 98%.

(d) seeking to avoid becoming pregnant. This is where the survey figures disappear beyond the looking-glass. It was restricted to sexually-active women, married and unmarried, who were seeking to avoid becoming pregnant. Thus all unmarried Catholic women who were not sexually active (there must be some of them) and all married Catholic women who wanted to become pregnant (ditto) were excluded. 

Using such restricted, biased inclusion criteria means the results of this study are not representative of the whole population of Catholic women. Please don’t be fooled…any study can be skewed by poor research practice. Thanks for sharing! 

Within the constructs of our secular society, there are those very rare days when we feel inclined to celebrate a saint of the Catholic Church (Saint Valentine’s Day, Saint Patrick’s Day). Sadly, these important events have turned into a commercialized, “let’s-get-drunk and have a party” occasions…the lives of the saints are forgotten, ignored, or worse, not known.

Don’t you find it odd that all of us look forward (at least a little bit) to Saint Valentine’s Day, and yet so few of us actually know the story of Saint Valentine’s life? What is it we are celebrating, and why? 

Historical records show that there may have been three different men known as Valentine, however it is likely that two of these were really the same man (St. Valentine). St. Valentine is known as the patron saint of love, young people, and happy marriages. Below is his story:

Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome, who, on finding all his promises to make him renounce his faith ineffectual, commanded him to be beaten with clubs, and afterwards, to be beheaded, which was executed on February 14, about the year 270. Pope Julius I is said to have built a church near Ponte Mole to his memory, which for a long time gave name to the gate now called Porta del Popolo, formerly, Porta Valetini. The greatest part of his relics are now in the church of St. Praxedes.

It is also believed that while he was imprisoned, Saint Valentine performed a miraculous healing and restored the sight of his jailer’s blind daughter. Though the details of Valentine’s life remain incomplete, I find that we can draw great wisdom from his life in relation to the Pro-Life cause. First of all, it is important to remember that Valentine was imprisoned, beaten, and executed in the name of his faith. As a worker in the pro-life field, one can be a victim of great animosity and hostility. I hope we can draw strength from Saint Valentine and all the other saints who laid down their lives for the Lord, keeping in mind the precept, “small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:14).

Secondly, on this feast of Saint Valentine, let us not forget the he is the patron saint of love and married couples. Bringing an end to abortion requires that society develop an awareness and great respect for the Sacrament of Marriage. Without the institution of family, society will collapse. There is a proper order that is preserved through marriage, and in it we find development, joy, peace, and prosperity. On this day let us all make a prayer to Saint Valentine, that married couples may continuously find strength in Christ, that those discerning marriage be led along the right path, and that those who have suffered divorce, broken relationships, or marital abuse may find the courage to rise up again and believe in the power of Christ’s redemptive love. Enjoy the feast of Saint Valentine’s, and please share his beautiful story!