Quebec Life Coalition

I would like to bring to your attention two common inconsistencies in the pro-choice position. First, the typical pro-choicer refuses to recognize that unborn children deserve protection, yet is adamant in defending animal rights. Isn’t it a bit strange that a person feels so strongly about safeguarding animal life, and has no problem destroying human life in its initial stages of development?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an animal is “any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.” A human embryo is “an organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation, from fertilization to the beginning of the third month of pregnancy (in humans).” This means that an embryo is, at the very least, a member of the animal kingdom. The fetus is defined as “An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth,” so at the fetal stage, it is clear that this ‘animal’ is clearly part of the human species.

Upon considering this argument, it is evident that a person cannot be both vegetarian and pro-choice, at least not if they are vegetarian for moral reasons (dietary reasons aside). If you believe it is wrong to kill animals, you must also believe it is wrong to kill unborn children for they fall into the category of animal at minimum. Many people also refuse to eat animals or animal products for religious reasons…but do these people know that many big companies (example: Pepsi) perform research on aborted fetuses to create new flavors or products?

In Québec there has been a recent controversy over Islamic halal meat production. Halal meat requires that the throat of an animal be cut, letting it bleed to death.” The Parti Québecois (PQ) claims that both consumer rights and animal rights are at stake here, and that halal meat production facilities must be thoroughly examined. The PQ stated that "This type of slaughter slams directly against Québécois values." Isn’t it ironic that many Quebecers are concerned about animal suffering and the slaughter of animals, but do not take into consideration the potential suffering inflicted upon human life in every abortion?

A second point I would like to emphasize is the inconsistency in the trend of eating only organic, natural foods while simultaneously consuming contraceptive pills. Many people are rightfully concerned about the levels of synthetic pesticides and chemicals added to nutrition. However, these same people also tend to advocate the use of contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the morning-after pill, IUDs, and condoms. Again, we see a certain level of hypocrisy here. On the one hand, a person may argue that you have to be very careful with the food you put in your body, that it must be healthy and free of rubbish. On the other hand, this same person claims contraceptive pills should be available to all women, even though these synthetic hormones have been shown to produce some negative health problems. Sound familiar?

So next time you meet ‘Ms. Organic-animal-rights-lover’, please don’t forget to ask her what she (or he) thinks about contraceptive pills and abortion. Try to elucidate some of these inconsistencies. It seems that many people are fooled into defending animal rights but not human rights, and emphasize organic eating while willingly polluting their bodies with contraceptives. 

Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University, recently argued that even Catholic universities such as Georgetown should be forced to pay for student access to contraception.

To my own amazement, President Obama telephoned Sandra Fluke to personally thank her for voicing the “concerns of American women." Fluke told NBC news: “I think this is about women's health. That's what it's always been about for me and that's what it's about for the… the many, many Americans who are emailing me constantly telling me how important it is.”

But is contraception really about women’s health? Aside the 14% of women who use the pill for ‘medical reasons’ , the majority of American women use birth control pills because they want to engage in sexual relationships without bearing the consequences of their own fertility. It is a very selfish business. The Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood) admits itself: “The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.” Here, we see once again, the extreme dissociation between sex and children. People are having more sex with more partners, and yet they want less children- a trend which defies the way we were created.

I invite you to watch this video by Bill O’Reilley titled “Do you want to pay for other people’s activities?” O’Reilley’s commentary boils down the HHS mandate issue to one very simple point: contraceptive use is not, in most cases, a health issue…so why should it be included in health coverage? The Obama administration and many people around the world defend abortion as a woman’s right, and birth control as a woman’s health issue- if we dig a little deeper we discover what these two really are: murder and dishonesty. A woman needs neither abortion nor contraception to live a healthy, happy, secure life- I and plenty of other women around the world are testaments to that fact.

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! 

I got this forwarded to me, and thought it an interesting documentary about the Pill and its little known abortifacient ability. That's right, the Pill sometimes causes very early abortions.

The documentary:

The Birth Control Pill Documentary from T Herbert on Vimeo.

Press release for the documentary:

"Dr. Albert Mohler, Seminary President has stated, "I cannot imagine any development in human history, after the Fall, that has had a greater impact on human beings than the pill."

View the full documentary "28 Days on the Pill" now by clicking: vimeo.com/12090300

A Christian worker, his family and a nurse friend investigate throughout North America to uncover the truth about the birth control pill. The debate has been raging for over a decade and yet many people don't know about it. How could this be? How does the pill really work? Can everyday oral contraceptives really cause abortions? Why are so many people uninformed?

Discover how this could be a deadly silence. Find out what has shocked doctors and nurses.

Whether Christian or not, women across the board do not have a real understanding of how the pill actually works. Does it only prevent ovulation? What do the inserts and pharmaceutical guides really say? How is it that women consume something when they know very little about how it actually works? Do women and men really care?

The producers believe they should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice. No matter what one's conclusions are, they believe everyone has a right to full information and informed consent. Whether on the left or the right, we should all agree, informed consent in the medical community is paramount.

This is a good start to the investigative work of how informed we really are, what we take for granted, who might know and may not want to tell.

The question is why? Why the silence? The topic that for many has been too hot to handle.

The documentary features: Dr. Albert Mohler (quoted in Time Magazine's recent article on The Pill), The Duggars (19 children and counting), Christian author Randy Alcorn (i.e. Heaven, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?) and Dr. Walt Larimore (formerly with Focus on the Family)."

Another excellent article by Jenifer Fulwiler on how abortion is the result of the contraceptive mentality, or the dissociation of sex and children. Once those two get dissociated, we see people having sex at times in their lives when they cannot care for children. The result is they invariably get pregnant and feel they have to abort. 

Some say that in the days when children followed sex like day followed night, women were slaves to their biology, and that since today that link is severed, women are emancipated. However, the so-called "emancipation" is false: women (and men) are still slaves to their biology in the sense that they cannot put off sex until such a time as they are ready to accept children in their lives. 

When women and men will be able to put off sexual relations until they are able to rear children, we will have attained real sexual emancipation.

(Here's another classic from Jenifer Fulwiler: Eight responses to the pro-choice mindset.)

Like the right to abortion in Canadian law, the right to consequence-free sex is imaginary. Unlike abortion, however, consequence-free sex on-demand does not exist in the first place.

...Access to reproductive health information and services builds a foundation for healthier families and communities ... It allows women to continue their education, thereby improving their economic status and the well-being of their families. Additionally, it is critical in preventing unintended pregnancies and ensuring the blessing that every child is a wanted child [emphasis mine].

Two things pop out at me.  The first is a discouraging lack of openness to and support of new life no matter the circumstances.  But an even more apparent omission is any recognition that having sex is a choice -- a controllable variable that never has entirely controllable consequences.

I understand the logic of preventing unwanted pregnancies to prevent abortions.  But despite the sincere and admirable intent, the myth of consequence-free sex underlying this strategy is untenable and only contributes to the belief that unintended pregnancies are merely mistakes for which no one is responsible, and which must be "taken care of" through access to abortion.

Promoting the idea that everyone is entitled to sex minus any responsibility for its foreseeable consequences is dishonest and counter-productive in building a culture of life.