I love this picture ... :)

Video of the Week: Canadians Support Motion312

Quote of the Week: "For I am fearfully and wonderfully made"

 

"For You formed my inward parts;

       You wove me in my mother's womb.

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

       Marvelous are Your works,

And that my soul knows very well.

       My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

      And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth;

Your eyes saw my substance,

      Being yet unformed

And in Your book they all were written

      The days fashioned for me,

When as yet there were none of them."

Seeing Hope (7): An Uplifting Story

Take a look at the article 21 Pictures That Will Restore Your Faith In Humanity. All of the pictures that are included in the article are definitely uplifting, but what really had an impact on me was the story shared by the Top Commenter on the article. It was a much needed reminder that donating money, writing articles, posting on Facebook, and advocating on behalf of the poor and vulnerable are all well and good, but simple, generous gestures are what really have an impact on individual lives. So reach out to your fellow man and do your best to simply be there for the people who are in your life and who pass through your life. You never know the good a simple act of love can do!

Saving Lives

... so thank you to everyone out there who help women keep their surprise babies! If you're pregnant and need help there are lots of resources available for you. Please take the time to learn about all your options, and remember, we love you just as much as we love your unborn baby! You are beautiful and strong and you are not alone! You can do this!

For non-denominational, non-politically-driven support I recommend first looking into:
Birthright International
800-550-4900 

Early Pregnancy Paternity Blood Test

From the NY Times:

One of these babies has the wrong father ...

Can you tell which one?

"Besides relieving anxiety, the test results might allow women to terminate a pregnancy if the preferred man is not the father — or to continue it if he is." 

What a horrifying statement. Just goes to show how the exact same baby can be seen as either valuable or disposable based on some external factor that has no influence at all on what the baby actually is: a human person.

CCBR in Toronto June 28!

From the event page:

"As many of you know, the pro-life educational group the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform is currently travelling across Canada for their "New Abortion Caravan" Campaign, confronting the public with the reality of "choice" through the use of graphic images, presentations, debates and pamphleting campaigns.

CCBR will be passing through Toronto and will be holding a talk at St. Vincent de Paul Church on Thursday, June 28th at 7:30pm. Executive Director Stephanie Gray and fellow activist Jonathon Van Maren will be speaking about how we can all help End the Killing of our innocent and helpless Canadian brothers and sisters.

You DON'T want to miss it!

To read more info about the New Abortion Caravan, click here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/caravan"


Please consider attending! 


Where: St. Vincent de Paul Church, 268 Roncesvalles Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
When: June 28, 2012, 19:30-21:15

Quote of the Week: "take a good long look in the mirror"

 
"When you've got the whole 'choice' side running around demonizing any pregnancy that wasn't 100% expected as a life-ending calamity instead of the normal, ordinary, healthy event that it is, and painting all women who have unplanned pregnancies as weak-minded, easily led, and totally subordinate to an unborn child who threatens neither self, nor freedom, nor intelligence, nor anything else about their mother, I just have to laugh at them. Because then, after doing all that, [pro-choicers] will turn around and call [them]selves ...champion[s] of women's rights in order to defend sex-selective abortions. So, since we're talking about misogynists who've hijacked the language of women's rights, I can only suggest ... that you [pro-choicers] take a good long look in the mirror."

 - Alice, in response to commentary from pro-choicers who claim that pro-lifers who focus on sex selection abortion have hijacked the language of women's rights in order to subjugate women (via Jill Stanek's blog)

Video of the Week: Hungry

In honour of the recent legalization of assisted suicide in Canada:

Tips for Pro-choice Activists

Read Jane Cawthorne and Joyce Arthur's "Tips for Responding to the Abortion Crapavan" here. It is quite a rant against CCBR's newest project, called the New Abortion Caravan. 

In response, I have some tips for all you pro-choicers out there on how to properly respond when someone protests against your life's passion.

#1. Know thine enemy.

From Cawthorne & Arthur (emphasis my own):
 "[The New Abortion Caravan is] a project of the grossly misnamed Canadian Centre for Bioethical Research - CCBR"

This is just so hysterical because they actually provide a link to the CCBR website, yet they still get it wrong. Perhaps "Canadian Centre for Bioethical Research" seems so grossly misnamed to them because it is a misnomer - CCBR's actual name is "Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform".  Get it right!

#2. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.

From Cawthorne & Arthur on how to protest (emphasis my own):
"Include fun positive actions, satire, or costumes (dancing genitalia have been used in Calgary)."
"Give out cookies, condoms, balloons, or what have you. Ask a local sexual health centre for freebies."

Yes, because nothings says "I have a message about human rights, and I want you to listen because women's lives are at stake" like dancing genitalia, condoms, and sexual health freebies (is it too presumptuous to assume that women's lives are why Cawthorne and Arthur support abortion? Perhaps, considering their idea of a successful counter-protest centres around sex).

#3. Don't imply that you find images of bloody and dead pre-born children arousing.

From Cawthorne & Arthur  (emphasis my own):
"The so called 'new abortion caravan,' an anti-choice display of fetus pornography ..."

I think it is extremely disturbing when people, who presumably have no problem with imagery of the sexual act, equate violence and death with said imagery.

#4. Be professional and respectful, or people won't respect you.

From Cawthorne & Arthur (emphasis my own):
"... [The New Abortion Caravan is] dubbed the 'Crapavan' by pro-choicers ..."
"... pro-choice activists in Calgary have dubbed the 'Fetus-mobile' ..."
 "ARCC's intent is to protect the safety of pro-choice demonstrators and prepare you for the onslaught of crazy ..."
"The Calgary Pro-Choice Coalition produced a comic book about them, believing such a response was the only logical way to react to their ridiculous and offensive tactics."
Also see the "fetus pornography" comment from above ...

You'll notice that CCBR is professional and respectful in the language they use on their blog and in their press releases. I suggest the ARCC strive to do the same, lest they appear juvenile to the Canadian public.

#5. Don't make obviously false claims.

From Cawthorne & Arthur (emphasis my own):
"The real Abortion Caravan was part of second wave feminist efforts to decriminalize abortion. In 1970, a group of revolutionary women traveled from Vancouver to Ottawa ... to protest the new abortion law that was written to protect doctors, not help women access abortion. The new anti-choice version of this event bears no resemblance to it whatsoever."

Lets compare and contrast, shall we?

The New Abortion Caravan uses graphic imagery and shocking tactics.
The original Abortion Caravan used graphic imagery and shocking tactics.
For example, the original caravan included "a Volkswagen bus complete with a black coffin strapped on the roof". On Mother's Day,  a "convoy of Canadian women, over five hundred strong in support, arrived- coat hangers and a black coffin in tow" Additional aspects of the protest involved Prime Minister "Pierre Trudeau burned in effigy" and "[a] black coffin adorned with coat hangers left at the Prime Minister's front door" (From Wikipedia). Additionally, in an interview with the CBC, Margo Dunn, an original member of the Caravan, admitted that they also used shocking imagery in support of free access to abortion.
The New Abortion Caravan is travelling from Vancouver to Ottawa.
The original Abortion Caravan traveled from Vancouver to Ottawa.
The New Abortion Caravan concerns abortion.
The original Abortion Caravan concerns abortion.
I could go on.
Of course there is one main difference ... the New Abortion Caravan is protesting against the killing of unborn children, while the original caravan protested in favour of the practice. Also, I will be very surprised if the New Abortion Caravan manages to shut down parliament like the original did. But one can hope.

#6. Don't give your opponents free publicity.

From Cawthorne & Arthur (emphasis my own):
"Focus on raising awareness on anti-abortion Motion 312 ..."
"Consider setting up a warning at either end of the demonstration ..."

#8. Stop equating abortion to the Catholic Church. 

"Even Calgary's Bishop Henry has denounced this group's tactics ..."


You know, there are non-Catholics out there who are against abortion, and I'm sure most of them couldn't care less what a Calgary bishop has to say. I'm sure quite a few pro-choicers also don't care about the words of a Catholic bishop. Additionally, it would be good to realize that pro-life advocates turn to more than just the Bible and God in support of their cause, so I also suggest pro-choicers start brushing up on things like science and philosophy.

#7. (Hint: this is the most important one!) Address what your opponent is saying. 

In response to a protest exposing the realities of abortion and the humanity of its victims, Cawthorne and Arthur seem to only be able to discuss sex and women's bodies. The New Abortion Caravan has nothing to do with "dancing genitalia", "condoms", sex "freebies", or "fetus-porn", and has little to do specifically with what a woman does with her own body. However, it does have everything to do with the bodies of the unborn, and what is done to them. They have been ripped apart, starved, dismembered, disemboweled - in other words, they have been violently killed by Canadian doctors at the request of their mothers. Though I suppose, when the humanity of the child in the womb is so obvious, all a pro-choicer can do is ignore the real problem. 

To any pro-choice Catholics out there ...

I came across this little gem while perusing the comments section of BadCatholic's latest blogpost, "Catholics for Choice". It is pretty much perfect:

Originally from A Star of Hope

The Contraception Mentality

Via jillstanek.com: "Is it true the morning-after pill does NOT cause abortions?"

The post above, from Jill Stanek's blog, is in response to a New York Times article posted yesterday which claims that anti-abortion qualms about birth control (specifically Plan B and Ella) may be unfounded, meaning that these two pills do not cause early abortions by preventing the implantation of a new embryo. First off, if this is true, and if this could be true for all BC pills, that would be amazing. It would remove pro-lifers' top objection against birth control pills. But, like Jill mentions at the end of her article, this does not eliminate all of the problems with contraception.

A caveat for my readers:
I am Catholic. Catholicism has in some ways absolutely influenced my beliefs about contraception. I think artificial contraception is wrong, I would never use it, and I never have. However, I do not believe this for precisely the same reasons my Church does (I'm still learning, still working through my understanding Church teachings, and still searching through my own thoughts to determine whether I truly agree or not - if you're wondering, that is absolutely allowed! But let me be very clear - my thoughts are NOT the official position of the Catholic Church, and nor am I a particularly good or faithful Catholic). I think artificially suppressing your fertility is wrong for two main reasons:

(1) Women's (and men's) bodies are naturally fertile - when we're healthy, we're able to pro-create! That's an amazing thing, and I see no reason to mess with the way your body naturally functions - especially (for women) when you have to take artificial hormones which destroy your normal cycle to do so. This can have potentially disastrous effects. I have one friend who is now unable to have children, likely due to her use of BC. It is for this reason I would never, ever take oral contraceptives. I would not use condoms for a more personal reason - I think that using a barrier during sex pretty much ruins the unitary aspect of the act.

(2) I do not like the way contraception has divorced having children from having sex. You only have to look at the way people treat teen sex and teen pregnancy. If a teen is having sex - they are perfectly normal, healthy, and are making a good decision, providing they are sleeping with someone they care for and who cares for them. But if that same teen gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, suddenly she is discussed in hushed tones, suddenly she becomes irresponsible, suddenly she has made a horrible mistake - but it is the baby that is the mistake, not the act that created the baby. This makes no sense to me: why should the natural, totally predictable result of having sex be irresponsible, but the act itself be responsible and healthy?

Anyway, now back to the article. I want to specifically address an idea that is common in the pro-life movement:

“The contraception mentality is the root of the abortion mentality.”

I agree with this statement, to a certain extent. I do think you can contracept and still be open to life should you become pregnant "accidentally". But the problem with the contraception mentality is less the idea of attempting to avoid having a baby, and more a belief that this attempt somehow absolves you of any responsibility should you actually become pregnant.

A good example of this mentality are the beliefs of two of my pro-choice friends. Neither of them believes that using abortion as contraception should be encouraged or acceptable. But their beliefs have a condition:

If you are irresponsible, and do not bother using contraception when having sex, then you should deal with the consequences, have your baby, care for it, or give it up for adoption. You are the one who made a mistake. BUT, if you were being responsible (by using contraception properly) why should you have to suffer because the contraception failed? After all, you made no mistakes, you did everything right, its not your fault that you're pregnant, its the fault of the contraception failure! So abortion should be available as a back-up for responsible couples who did everything possible to avoid becoming pregnant.

Therefore, in my experience with pro-choicers, it is in this way that contraception encourages abortion - because responsible people, who use contraception to avoid pregnancy, can sometimes get pregnant anyway. Somehow, using contraception erases any responsibility a mother and father has towards their "accident" - parents should not have to "suffer" the consequences of becoming pregnant through a contraception failure.

So, to be clear, I do NOT think couples are "evil" for knowing that they are not ready for a child, and for therefore trying to not have a child. But what people need to realize is that contraception is not fool-proof. It will occasionally fail. We therefore need to stress that just because you tried not to have the baby, that does not mean you now have no responsibility towards the child you still willingly created by having sex. Being responsible about sex does not simply mean doing your best to avoid pregnancy - it also means knowing that there is a failure rate, and being prepared to accept the possibility that a child may be created. In fact, I would argue that being responsible towards sex (by using contraception in some way) creates a greater responsibility towards your child, since the parents should be aware (by simply reading the packaging) that contraception has a failure rate, and they engaged in sex anyways. 

Quote of the Week: "Statistics are often unreliable"

"In the absence of hard data, the abortion industry has already demonstrated their willingness to supply the press with any number they deem useful. Could the Guttmacher Institute be doing the same thing today? A similar question struck me as I researched abortion in Japan. Remarkably, Mariko Kato reports that the abortion rate in Japan is well below that of the US, roughly 9.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-49 (verses 19.6 in the United States). But then I read that Japanese 'obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) have long underreported abortions to avoid paying taxes on the income they generate.' In places where abortion is legal, it's generally in the industry's best interest to underreport. In places where abortion is illegal, it is always in their best interest to overreport. All that to say, arguments based on statistics are dangerous because statistics are often unreliable"
- Mike Spielman

Read more at the Abort73 blog

Pro-choice vs. pro-life on pushing religious views

 

Pro-choice

 

 Pro-life