News

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.

Day 2 at the "40 Days for Life" prayer vigil was pretty barren.

The number of participants was half that of the previous day - 11 compared to 22. The weather progressily got worse as the day went on; a snow squall hit the park at around 3 p.m. And even the pro-choice crowd remained away. Pretty stark day.

Yet, anyone familiar with deserts knows well that it is teaming with life. The "barren" afternoon - no one had register from noon until 7 p.m., indeed was not devoid of life.

First there were the moments of solitude. I was blessed. Prayer and reverie brought me to the foot of the Cross or in the garden of Gethsemane. Hymns buoyed my spirit.

Also, an elderly woman passing by, went out of her way to give me words of encouragement.

Then the first in a series of non-scheduled prayers showed up. At 2 p.m. Barbara arrived and together we chatted and prayed and before we knew it, it was already 4 p.m.; time for her to leave. An hour passed before a second prayer warrior showed up - Yves, and at 6 p.m. a third, jerome replacing Yves.

We fellowshiped and it was 6:55 p.m.; five minutes to go. After a final prayer of gratitude, we closed up shop, gathering the site's belongings. Day was done.
 

I'm writing this from an internet cafe on Parc Avenue - I have a two hour break... until noon.

Great day yesterday. Gruelling yet full of grace.

I spent eleven hours at the site yesterday and received many blessings, much positive stuff. Foremost was the trinkling of folks to the site to pray. Some came for five to ten minutes while others stayed for an hour or two. And this went on for the entire day - from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Most came alone - Jean, Gabriel, James, Emilia,..., but others came in groups - a young couple from Verdun with their parents who are visiting from Brazil.

Also, had a couple to registrations. One man has offered to covered two two-hour slots per week and another couple will take an hour block on March 3rd. Slowly that schedule is filling.

Our nieghbours (the counter-protesters) showed up at 4 p.m. and stayed a couple of hours. The same lot we are familiar with. Jovial. Free bagels may have been an incentive from many. I felt hostility by one of the thirty or forty that showed up during this time. They have invested in a new banner, stitching similar to our own. I wonder how they bought it...

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.

The 7th edition of a twice-a-year international prayer vigil for the end of abortion is kicking off this evening at 7pm in Lahaie Park (at the intersection of Saint-Laurent and Saint-Joseph boulevards), across the street from a Montreal abortion clinic.

Along with 257 other cities across the world, this "40 Days for Life" vigil, which will take place at Lahaie Park daily from 7am until 7pm from February 22nd until April 1st, aims to peacefully and prayerfully inform the public at large about the damage abortion has done to society.

Organised in Montreal by the Quebec Life Coalition (QLC), this year's vigil coincides with a new abortion defunding initiative spearheaded by QLC. This initiative will run alongside the 40 Days for Life right up until April 30th, the end of the tax season.

More about the 40 Days for Life >>

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.

Dear Pro-Lifer,

If you are anything like me, you are probably rejoicing with each passing day. Not only are we enjoying more daylight but also a stronger sun. Winter's end is near. (Click here for the February Newsletter !)

Could it also be, in the light of recent events, that the end of Canada's abortion winter is near? Is the era of free and unrestricted abortion is ending?

We at the Quebec Life Coalition think so and you can helpmake this happen. More about this in a moment.  

Abortion's Winter Thaw

First, the abortion thaw is underway. During the first week of February, the Honourable Stephen Woodworth, the Member of Parliament for Kitchener Center, Ontario, took a big step at thawing the abortion winter which has blanketed our land since 1968.

It was back in 1968 that Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced legislation that permitted the performance of abortions in hospitals provided a three-doctor panel judged the medical merit of the procedure for the particular woman.

This legislation was challenged in 1988. Dr. Morgentaler argued that to restrict the procedure to hospitals alone was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, the Trudeau legislation was quashed, and ever since no federal law governing the procedure has existed.

Since this decision, the Conservatives have tried to write legislation but to no avail. And so at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason, a woman can have an abortion.

Will the step taken by Conservative member from Ontario be able to achieve legislative distinction?

And so on Monday, February 6, Mr. Woodworth took a step in this direction. His press release begins:

Today MP Stephen Woodworth filed a Motion with the Clerk of the House of Commons to ask Parliament to form a special Committee to study Canada's 400 year old definition of human being and report back to the House on the medical evidence it finds and on options to deal with this archaic law.

The 400 year old definition states that a child is a human being only at the moment of complete birth.

Yet, medical science, observes Mr. Woodworth, has progressed since this seventeenth century legislation on which Canadian law is based. A revision is due.

And not only a revision but also an evaluation of its implications, guided by the following questions:

1. What medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?
2. Is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?
3. What are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?
4. What are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?  

Income Tax Defund Plan

Also, we at the Quebec Life Coalition have found a way to contribute to this thaw, with a little help from you.

Included herewith, you will find a form to be filled and included with your provincial income tax statement. It is addressed to the minister of Finance requesting that your tax monies targeted for provincially funded abortions be refunded to you.

• As we believe that the purpose of healthcare is helping individuals in our society with their sicknesses; and
• Whereas pregnancy is not an illness; then
• We conclude that abortions do not fall under the coverage of the ministry of Health.

So, we encourage you to fill in the form below and to submit it along with your tax return.

Along with the initiative of Mr. Woodworth, you will be contributing to ending abortion's winter reign.

Many thanks for your continued support,

Brian Jenkins

Coordinator for English and Multicultural Community Outreach

Quebec Life Coalition

As a special offer and to commemorate the "40 Days for Life" prayer vigil – from Wednesday, February 22, to Sunday, April 1, 2012, both new donors and regulars who respond to this month's appeal will receive a complimentary "40 Days for Life" t-shirt.

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)?