Quebec Life Coalition

June 16, 2012:Thunder Bay Man Assaults Women of The New Abortion Caravan

From the website of the Canadian Centre of Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR):

This video shows a local resident and business owner in Thunder Bay violently assaulting young women of the New Abortion Caravan by dumping chocolate milk over their heads and bodies. 

The New Abortion Caravan  is a cross-country tour run by the anti-abortion group, Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.Their spokeperson and executive director Stephanie Gray commented on these incidents saying, "We are disturbed that this man would bully and assault young women trying to speak up for other women as well as children. But we are inspired by the calm response of our team members who refuse to fight violence with violence.  By their actions, my courageous colleagues echoed the sentiment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who once said, 'We will match your ability to inflict suffering with our ability to endure suffering.'"

The Catholic Bishops of Canada are apparently launching a country wide pro-life and pro-family initiative. They hope that in every diocese across the land Catholics will become more aware of the battle for Life raging in our culture and the importance of family. In the introduction page to this initiative the bishops conference asks various groups to submit ideas and aids to the conference as it seeks to put flesh on the bones of this new initiative.

I for one humbly sumbit the sermon below, as an example of both the tone and the content that I would seek in a homily that is more than vague platitudes about the cuteness of babies and the joys of family life. Obviously, not every sermon can be this politically charged, but these are no ordinary days, where canadians are forced, through their healthcare taxes, to fund the killing of unborn human beings and other actions that deeply offend their consciences. It is baffling to me why no one up here seems to have offered anywhere near the resistance that we are seeing, thanks be to God, from the bishops and pastors and laity down in the US as they fight the coopting of their own proposed universal HealthCare system by forces that want to kill the unborn.

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. 

Today, a 180-page report was released by the Dying with Dignity Committee suggesting that the Quebec's attorney general recommend to the Crown in Quebec that assisted-suicide be legalized. This is bad news for the pro-life side…it is the beginning of the second wave of societal degeneration. First, the unborn can be killed for any reason and at any time. Now, the elderly and those with “intolerable pain” are going to be allowed to request an assisted suicide. Soon, anyone who deems that their life is not worth living (or any person who has caregivers that wish to see them gone) will be euthanized or assisted in suicide. This means that, eventually, even children (such as is already the case in the Netherlands, google "Groningen protocol"), people with mental health problems ("incurable disease, psychological "distress"), adults (again, the "psychological distress" criterion, with the tenuous "incurable disease" criterion to be dismissed soon enough) and the elderly (see the "Free Will" initiative gaining steam in the Netherlands) alike will all be made victims of a system where people are treated as commercial goods that can be eliminated once no longer valid or wanted. If this seems like an over-reaction, you just haven't been keeping up with developments...

For further enlightenment on this topic, I invite you to read “EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: WHY NOT?", an interesting and informative document published by the Catholic Organization for Life and the Family  which offers quick answers to common arguments regarding euthanasia.

Below I have included some snippets of this document which I believe help in elucidating the problem of euthanasia and assisted suicide (please note that I have reworded some of the questions/concerns for the sake of brevity- the original formatting of the questions can be viewed in the document indicated above.)

“It is my choice” ----“Such a law would be a guaranteed recipe for abuse of the vulnerable; it would be incapable of protecting them from coercion by family members and others.” (page 3)

“I want to die with dignity” ----“We all have the power to respond with friendship, love and solidarity to the illness of others in order to uphold and protect their “right to life” until the moment of natural death. We need each other in death as we need each other in life.” (page 4)

“I don’t want to be hooked up to machine if it is time for me to die” ---“The withdrawal or withholding of extraordinary or disproportionate treatment, when its burdens outweigh its benefit, is not euthanasia because the intention is not to cause death but to allow the person to die naturally; in euthanasia the intention is to cause death – the patient does not die naturally but rather is killed by another human being before his or her time…There is a great difference between allowing to die and making die.” (page 5)

“I want control over when I die” – “Our society has always reached out to suicidal citizens who need help in living, not help in dying. It would be quite a contradiction to continue funding distress centers and suicide prevention programs while legalizing assisted suicide. If people chose to die while temporarily depressed or in intense pain, instead of receiving proper medical attention, they will potentially be deprived of many good years of life.” (page 6)

“Why force someone to suffer pain?” ---“We need to eliminate the pain, not the patient. Pain relief medications used appropriately rarely shorten life; the patient usually dies from his or her underlying disease. There is a huge difference between giving drugs to relieve pain and suffering, and intentionally using pain relief treatment to euthanize a person.” (page 7)

“I don’t want to burden my family” ---“The fear of being a burden is the key reason why some people ask to have their death hastened. Many Canadians also feel abandoned and are very isolated. They need to be consoled, encouraged and comforted.” (page 10)

“If euthanasia is already happening in our country, wouldn’t it be better to legalize it?” --- “If euthanasia is being carried out against the law, this shows that the law is incapable of controlling euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia will not fix this problem. Providing government sanctions for euthanasia will endorse a practice that will harm the most vulnerable members of society and devastate the institution of medicine.” (page 12)

“Why are you imposing your religious values?” Euthanasia is not a religious issue, but a human rights issue. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (art. 3). In order to uphold this right for all citizens, at this moment in Canadian history when we are faced with the prospect of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, we need to (1) encourage new research and education on pain relief; (2) provide public funding for more palliative care centers and units in order to ensure that all Canadians have access to end of life care; (3) and develop fiscal measures to allow primary care givers to commit themselves freely to the support of their sick or dying loved ones.” (page 14)

Killing cannot be the solution to disease and suffering. Human life must be valued and protected in all circumstances- euthanasia and assisted suicide threaten this most fundamental human right. If you are a resident of Quebec, please voice your stance against euthanasia and assisted suicide by calling your MPP.

The current "40 Days for Life" campaign is the largest in the movement's history. Over 300 grass-root groups have stepped forward to host a site where praying for the end of abortion is occurring and this in seven different countries. Information regarding the history of the movement may be found here.

Here in Canada, we are also seeing the greatest numbers of vigil locations occurring in any one campaign since these began back in 2007. From Victoria, B.C., through the prairies, into central Canada, and out east in the Maritime provinces, fifteen organizations have committed themselves to the cause of the unborn through 40 days of praying and fasting and constant vigil.

In Edmonton, Alberta, the prayer vigil caught the attention of the Western Catholic Reporter. In an October 10 story, and found here, the article notes the ecumenical tone to the vigil as both protestant and Catholic groups are participating.

Further, the reporter notes that what had been a once a year vigil - in the spring time, has for the first time become a twice a year event. Karen Richert, office director for Edmonton Pro-Life, says in regard to this change: "...we had a lot of people say to us that the weather is so much more favourable in the fall, so that's why we're doing both now.

Finally, we read how the vigilers are disproving the myth that we are there to judge and condemn the women who wish to procure an abortion. “People just want somebody to talk to, and they want to know that they are not hated for what they’ve done, so that sign of hope and witness is always so important,” said Richert.

Hi Folks,

I trust this blog finds you all well.

Well, reactions continue to be written regarding yesterday's incident at Notre Dame de Montréal Basilica. (See links at end of blog.)

Crossroads Canada pilgrims were making their final Montreal visit before heading out to Ste. Anne de Beaupré, outside Quebec City that same day. The twelve pro-life pilgrims had arrived Friday afternoon from Cornwall and had spent the weekend praying and witnessing to Montrealers about their cross-Canada walk that began in Vancouver this past May. Friday they were received at the St. Joseph's Oratory with a sunset picnic. Saturday, after a 10 a.m. mass at the Oratory and before a picnic in Lahaie park, they prayed for a solid two hours in front of the Morgentaler abortuary. Finally, Saturday evening and Sunday they meet various parish groups both in Montreal and on south shore Longueuil sharing their experience.

On Monday the young adults and their hosts gathered for a mid-day Mass at Mary Queen of the World Cathedral. Afterwards the group processed through the busy streets of Montreal with stops at St. Patrick Basilica and Bonsecours Chapel prior to arriving at Notre Dame. The walk proceeded fairly well, with the occasional heckler mouthing off. Fortunately there were also a few affirming honks and waves.

The pilgrims were warmly welcomed at Notre Dame. Quebec Life Coalition president Georges Buscemi greeted them with a special gift - T-shirts for each participant emblazoned with the pro-life message in French. This will be fitting attire for their trek through La Belle Province. After a photo shoot of the group with their new wear, 

the lot of us proceeded to the basilica for prayer, oblivious to what awaited us.

In a nutshell, we were denied entry. (Personnel are posted at the entrance to greet and direct both visitors & pilgrims - the former, after payment, are admitted into the church while the latter into the small frontal chapel, free of charge. The latter is a glass enclosure in the nave set aside from the church for small Eucharistic celebrations, containing space for about 30 people, an altar and a tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament.) We were told that our PRO-VIE t-shirts were inappropriate. A half-hour later and after some private negotiating between the pilgrims' leader - Michael Hayden, and the presiding clerical official, we eventually gained access into the chapel.

Once inside, the experience was spiritually powerful. It is difficult to recount. We were alone in the chapel. To a person, we knelt in silent meditation for some time. Afterwards, we recited the rosary and then listened to one of our group share how she had been divinely touched during the prayer with a message for all of us.  Namely, that our trial at entering the chapel this day was akin to the reception He had received in the synogogue in his home town. Upon exiting, I felt invigorated.

In conclusion, I understand that the basilica has been the site of disruptions in the past. Persons with political messages had entered the church and disrupted proceedings.  And so, norms have been set up to prevent future repeats. Yet, I think a revision is needed to the guidelines, permitting a distinction between a political message and a pastoral one.

Interested folks, can read further about this incident - here from the Lifesitenews article and here from the Crossroads pilgrims' blog site.

The “silencing of the pro-life message” – the suppression of the pro-life message on Canadian university campuses, in Canadian schools, in the media generally, on the sidewalks in front of abortion facilities, must be decried, must be opposed…But most importantly, it must be understood for what it is: a symptom of the fact that Christendom is no more. And when we realize this frightful but ultimately liberating truth, we have to understand one additional thing: that Christendom is no more because the faith of Christians everywhere has dimmed. In short, the silencing of the pro-life message began with a silencing or dimming of the Christian message within our own hearts, and a return to moral sanity in our land will begin with a rekindling of that Faith.

1.1) The current legal situation in Canada

What is the current legal situation in Canada? Here is a question for you:

imagine a baby girl, breathing and kicking, but her left foot is still inside the mother's birth canal. According to you, is that baby girl a human person? Yes, right? But according to the Supreme Court of Canada, you're wrong!

Currently, in Canada, anybody can kill any child for any reason, from conception until the last part of the baby comes out (excluding the umbilical cord and the placenta). In Canada, pigeons, racoons and pigs have more legal protection than a baby inside a mother's womb.

The first one to invoke a religious belief, loses!

Why?

Did you know that in Canada there has never been a serious and thorough debate on abortion? There isn't even a "right to abortion", but actually an intentional legal vacuum! Right now, anybody can kill any child for any reason, from conception until the last part of the baby's body has exited the birth canal.

How?

A respectful and constructive debate on abortion requires a lot of calm and thought. Therefore this debate will be done by e-mail, with everything posted on the Internet. Moreover, the first one to invoke a religious belief loses!

Ideally, pro-choicers and pro-lifers would each organize their "team" and elect a kind of "team captain" who would be the official spokesperson. But in the interest of democracy, pro-choicers can of course enter several teams.

Also ideally, it would be really interesting if we could obtain the collaboration of Laval University for the refereeing. Imagine if the "referees" or "jury" of the debate was composed of several women professors, especially if they have a Ph.D. in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology or medicine! This would seem very appropriate, since abortion is a very "feminine" issue, but also because we want to approach it in the most scientific manner possible.
 

For more information:

Please contact the person in charge of the debate, Stefan Jetchick (See Contact). We'll send you by e-mail:

• A general debating method (applicable to any topic)
• A suggested discussion framework (specific to abortion)
• The coordinates of the team captains

This is a powerful new video on YouTube which raises awareness regarding the humanity of the (yet) unborn child. The video, in very simple terms, highlights the four ways the unborn child is different from a human being already born, and goes on to explain how these do not justify the killing of the unborn. It ends with a call to stand up for the unborn who cannot speak for themselves.