Pro-Lifers Need to Stand Against the Death Penalty

While pro-lifers are generally associated with the battle for Foetal rights, and stopping the euthanasia movement, it is my view that we must also fight the death penalty worldwide. Amnesty international used to be an effective voice against this barbaric and morally wrong form of punishment, but no Christian can have anything to do with that organization any longer now that they have come out foursquare in support of abortion. So the pro-life movement needs to step in, and stand in the gap on this issue.

I oppose any move to restore the death penalty in Canada, not only because I believe the taking of a life is morally wrong, but also on a precautionary basis given the potential for miscarriage of justice inherent in the system. We have seen too many cases of wrongful conviction in this country. If the death penalty was law in Canada, chances are that Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy-Paul Morin and Stephen Truscott, just to name a few would be fertilizing daffodils now, while the real perpetrators remained at large.
Not long ago there was a story about a girl from Scarborough who disappeared and was found dead in 1990 and her boyfriend was convicted of the murder. He did 8 years before being released on a legal technicality, though he was never cleared. Now it is appears possible that none other than Paul Bernardo may have been involved. If it proves true, then we have another illustration of someone who might have hanged for a crime he didn't commit.

In addition to the fallibility of the justice system, we must also take into account the reality that one's wealth or status may have a bearing on the outcome of a capital murder trial. It is a fact that poorer and less educated people are more likely to face execution in the United States than more affluent, educated people whose money or influence can purchase superior legal counsel, which often results in more lenient sentences. As long as we have a society where one's status can purchase the possibility of preferential treatment under the law, the society cannot call itself just, and have the death penalty, for which no redress can be made should it be later proven that the condemned person was not guilty as charged, on the books.

I concur with former prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker's statement that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free, than for one innocent man to hang.

Another argument that death penalty advocates like to bring up is the savings that would be wrought through executing murderers. It is said that keeping a person in maximum security costs between $30 000 and $50 000 per year. For the sake of this argument, let's take the higher figure, and multiply it by 50 years (assuming that the prisoner remains incarcerate for the rest of his natural life, as in the cases of Paul Bernardo, or Clifford Olsen), and you come up with the sum of $2.5 million. It has been demonstrated that the costs of an execution in the USA can run much higher than that, once the appeals process, which often takes years, kicks in, and finally when the execution is carried out, the costs of additional security, and other things will be tacked onto the final bill. Unless we go the route of summary executions after conviction (I don't think anyone wants to go there), then the cost of carrying out a death sentence will inevitably be higher than life behind bars.

I am fortunate that none of my family have been victims of murder, and I admit the possibility that if one of them was senselessly murdered, that my natural reaction might well be to want the perpetrator dead. However, the law of the land must be there to protect the wrongly convicted, and to ensure that everyone regardless of status gets the same treatment under the law. It must also ensure that wrongdoers are punished and prevented from re-offending which can be achieved where necessary through declaring some people dangerous offenders.

Unequal Before the Law: A Tale of Two Foetus Killers

So here's a guy in Texas who gets sentenced to death for killing a foetus. For that crime, he has a date with the executioner.

Now meet George Tiller "the killer" who kills foetuses every day, even viable ones by piercing their skulls with scissors, and then sucking their brains out with an aspirator, before removing the unborn child's corpse from his/her mother.

Both should have to pay for what they've done, though I would argue that the death penalty is inappropriate, however, why is it that one remains free to commit premeditated murder each and every day, and be paid handsomely for it, while another person who killed once be shipped iff to Huntsville in leg irons to await lethal injection?

Putting numbers aside, both have killed the unborn. By convicting the man in Texas based on a 2003 law, the state has conceded that the foetus in question was a human with full rights. Good. However if we have now established a precedent that an unborn child is fully human, then why isn't the man in Kansas trading in his white labcoat for an orange jumpsuit? Why is it then, that Texas still has abortion clinics open? Pro-life activists need to call their government to account. A justice system cannot have "deux poids de mesure".

While expressing my opposition to the death penalty, I do applaud the State of Texas for recognizing that the unborn child is a human being and deserving of his/her right to life. That said, if we are all equal before the law, then all unborn children have this right, thus the likes of Tiller the Killer, and his confreres at Planned Murderhood need to be closed down, and charged with first degree murder just like the man in Texas was.

Abortion will not be rejected until it is seen for what it is. Here are some photos of the profane danse macabre that goes on after an abortion at the Tiller Clinic. You see physical evidence of what was done during the murder of baby Chelsea, and then the disgraceful "memorial" that is part of Tiller's "service".

Here is an animated description of the process of late term (partial birth) abortion, Tiller's specialty:

Abortion: menace to women & children, crime against humanity, economic disaster, historic horror

By Ron Gray, National Leader Christian Heritage Party of Canada

It's absurd, of course, to suggest that abortion is solely "a women's issue"
when half the corpses are male. But since it is an issue of importance to
women, let's consider their concerns first.

FACT: Abortion hurts -- and sometimes kills -- women.

First, there is the undeniable link with breast cancer. It's no coincidence
that the present epidemic of breast cancer began in the early 1970s -- just
after so-called "therapeutic abortion" opened the flood-gates.
In a on the Canadian Public Affairs Channel (C-PAC), Canadian health
researcher Isabelle Begin presented extensive evidence supporting a link
between induced abortion and breast cancer. She said that informed consent
legislation must be implemented to ensure that women are given the necessary
information about this risk.

Begin noted that in its Global Action Plan of 1997, the World Conference on
Breast Cancer finally included "induced termination of pregnancy" in its
list of possible risk factors for breast cancer.

"Indeed, 43 studies throughout the world since 1957 have shown that induced
abortion carries an increased risk of breast cancer of 30 to 610%," she
said. (The difference dpends upon the number of abortions a woman has, says
researcher Dr. Joel Brind.)

18,700 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year in Canada.
Some women die from the direct effects of the abortion. A 19-year-old woman
in Terrace, BC, for example, was killed by her abortion. Many others, who
have their abortions in free-standing "clinics" and then go (or are sent) to
hospital emergency wards later, are actually hurt or killed by abortion but
it isn't listed as the cause of death because the hospital has no record of
the abortion. And some will wind up with perforated uteruses, colostomies,
etc. Some are made permanently sterile.

Many others suffer psychologically from 'post abortion syndrome'. A
Taiwanese company now offers 'fetus ghost appeasement' on the Internet at
$100. Their business wouldn't thrive there if there were not a big market of
suffering women to exploit.

"But weren't there thousands of deaths from back-alley abortions every year
before abortion became legal?" you may ask.

No.

One of the former leaders of the pro-abortion movement in the USA, Dr.
Bernard Nathanson -- founder and first president of the National Abortion
Rights Action League -- admitted in his book 'Aborting America' that NARAL
lied to promote its cause. He doesn't equivocate; he uses the word "lied".
They alleged about 5,000 maternal deaths a year in the USA when abortion was
illegal. The real number? Dr. Nathanson says it was under 40 -- and he says
more than that number die today from so-called "safe, legal" abortions.

Of course, abortion is not properly a "health" service at all; it cure no
known disease, and almost always results in the death of one of the two
patients.

Furthermore, abortion is laying the groundwork for a huge economic disaster
for Canada:

* First, the 110,000 children we kill ecah year in Canada have to be
replaced in the population by immigration. But the average age of those
immigrants is abotu 33 years when they come to Canada. In 32 years, when the
babies we're killing would just be entering their peak productive years (if
we had allowed them to live) -- and so contributing to the pension plan --
their 'replacements' will become eligible for their pensions -- and start
drawing out of the pension fund.
If we keep killing the future, who will care for us when we're old?

* Second, Canada -- like the rest of the industrialized world -- is now
facing a severe "birth dearth", as birth rates fall far, far below the
replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. In Québec, where I live, the
rate is now only 1.2.

The population agency of the United Nations says within 10 years, the
world's population will begin a precipitous decline -- much faster than the
rate of increase over the past 50 years. One result of that decline will be
an economic contraction that will be worse than The Great Depression of the
1930s.

Another result of abortion that can never be measured: how many researchers,
artists, philosophers have we killed before they drew their first breath?
Have we killed the discovered of a cure for cander or AIDS? A composer
surpassing Beethoven? An humanitarian like Mother Teresa? Who knows? Future
generations will rightly condemn the 20th century for the 'silent holocaust'
of abortion, which has been the worst crime against humanity in human
history.

When will we come to our senses? When will we realize that this issue,
ignored by all major political parties in Canada, is actually the most
important of all? Without the right to life, other rights fade to nothing.

The Smell of Rain

A cold March wind danced around the dead of night in Dallas as the doctor walked into the small hospital room of Diana Blessing. She was still groggy from surgery.
Her husband, David, held her hand as they braced themselves for the latest news.
That afternoon of March 10, 1991, complications had forced Diana, only 24-weeks pregnant, to undergo an emergency Cesarean to deliver couple's new daughter, Dana Lu Blessing.

At 12 inches long and weighing only one pound nine ounces, they already knew she was perilously premature.

Still, the doctor's soft words dropped like bombs.

"I don't think she's going to make it," he said, as kindly as he could.

"There's only a 10-percent chance she will live through the night, and even then, if by some slim chance she does make it, her future could be a very cruel one"

Numb with disbelief, David and Diana listened as the doctor described the devastating problems Dana would likely face if she survived.

She would never walk, she would never talk, she would probably be blind, and she would certainly be prone to other catastrophic conditions from cerebral palsy to complete mental retardation, and on and on.

"No! No! " was all Diana could say.

She and David, with their 5-year-old son Dustin, had long dreamed of the day they would have a daughter to become a family of four.

Now, within a matter of hour s, that dream was slipping away

But as those first days passed, a new agony set in for David and Diana. Because Dana's underdeveloped nervous system was essentially 'raw', the lightest kiss or caress only intensified her discomfort, so they couldn't even cradle their tiny baby girl against their chests to offer the strength of their love.

All they could do, as Dana struggled alone beneath the ultraviolet light in the tangle of tubes and wires, was to pray that God would stay close to their precious little girl.


There was never a moment when Dana suddenly grew stronger.

But as the weeks went by, she did slowly gain an ounce of weight here and an ounce of strength there.

At last, when Dana turned two months old. her parents were able to hold her in their arms for the very first time.

And two months later, though doctors continued to gently but grimly warn that her chances of surviving, much less living any kind of normal life, were next to zero, Dana went home from the hospital, just as her mother had predicted.

Five years later, when Dana was a petite but feisty young girl with glittering gray eyes and an unquenchable zest for life.

She showed no signs whatsoever of any mental or physic al impairment. Simply, she was everything a little girl can be and more. But that happy ending is far from the end of her story.



One blistering afternoon in the summer of 1996 near her home in Irving , Texas , Dana was sitting in her mother's lap in the bleachers of a local ball park where her brother Dustin's baseball team was practicing.


As always, Dana was chattering nonstop with her mother and several other adults sitting nearby when she suddenly fell silent Hugging her arms across her chest, little Dana asked, "Do you smell that?"

Smelling the air and detecting the approach of a thunderstorm, Diana replied, "Yes, it smells l ike rain."


Dana closed her eyes and again asked, "Do you smell that?"


Once again, her mother replied, "Yes, I think we're about to get wet. It smells like rain."


Still caught in the moment, Dana shook her head, patted her thin shoulders with her small hands and loudly announced,
"No, it smells like Him.

It smells like God when you lay your head on His chest."

Tears blurred Diana's eyes as Dana happily hopped down to play with the other children.


Before the rains came, her daughter's words confirmed what Diana and all the members of the extended Blessing family had known, at least in their hearts, all along.

During those long days and nights of her first two months of her life, when her nerves were too sensitive for them to touch her, God was holding Dana on His chest and it is His loving scent that she remembers so well.

Confession of an Ex-Abortionist

By Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Author of "The Silent Scream"

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptized in 1996.]

"Yes, It Is Legalized Murder"...

...Sighs the Russian abortionist at the end of this video, after attempting to rationalize what she does.

This video is difficult to watch, and by way of warning, features some partial nudity in the form of some female genitalia during the labour stage of the abortion. The woman is obviously in severe pain. There are no pictures of aborted children. It's a six minute segment of what was supposed to have been a 54 minute long documentary on abortion in Russia. They stopped production because of lack of financing.

While the conditions in Russian clinics are somewhat less well-appointed than those over here, one thing that is not different is that in spite of the glamour that the culture ascribes to casual, recreational sex, that the real picture of the consequences is not pretty at all. Abortion is all about suffering. The child suffers as it is being destroyed, and the women suffer physical pain as is shown here, not to mention the mental anguish that will plague them for a lifetime. And, surprisingly, it appears that even some abortionists suffer.

The Russian abortionists , unlike their North American counterparts, who tend to glorify it as a woman's reproductive "rights", acknowledge that their profession is repugnant, and that what they do, despite their justifications, amounts to the murder of another human being.

It is estimated that 80% of all Russian women have had abortions, and that the average woman has between 2 and 10 over their lifetime. You do the math.The numbers are staggering.

International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

More than 190 registrations have already been received for the "Current Issues - Future Directions" International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. We only have space for 270 people. Please register early, while space is available.

CLICK HERE FOR SYMPOSIUM WEBSITE

International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide:

Current Issues - Future Directions

Friday, Nov 30th, Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at the: Four Points Sheraton - Toronto Airport Hotel.

Organized by: the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Canada

Co-Sponsored by: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Canada, NOT DEAD YET - USA, Compassionate Healthcare Network - Canada, Archdiocese of Toronto - Canada, Physicians for Compassionate Care - USA, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare - Vermont, Care NOT Killing Alliance - UK, No Less Human, UK.

* Nearly every leader and significant speaker on the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide will be attending this Symposium. Make sure that it includes you.

The program begins on Friday November 30th at 9:30 am and ends on Saturday at 5:30 pm. The Friday night dinner speaker is Professor Margaret Somerville founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

The list of speakers include:

• Margaret Somerville, the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. Somerville is the author of many internationally recognized books including: The Ethical Imagination and Death Talk.

• Dr. Peter Saunders is the director of the Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK, that co-ordinates organizations in the UK that oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide and support palliative care. They were instrumental in defeating a recent assisted suicide bill in the UK.

• Dr William Toffler is the national director of Physicians for Compassionate Care in Portland Oregon, a national organizations of physicians who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide in the US.

• Dr. Bob Orr is the director of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care opposes assisted suicide and promotes ethical healthcare practices. They were instrumental in defeating a recent assisted suicide bill in Vermont.

• Diane Coleman is the founder of NOT DEAD YET, a leading disability rights group in the US.

• Stephen Drake is the research director for NOT DEAD YET.

• Allison Davis is the national co-ordinator of No Less Human in the UK, a national disability rights organization

.• Hugh Scher is the legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the former chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Human Rights Committee. Hugh is a leading lawyer in Canada on Human Rights, Constitutional and End-of-Life Issues.

• Alex Schadenberg is the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada.

• Rita Marker is the Executive Director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Rita is the leader and the unifying force for groups that oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

• Wesley J. Smith, attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Smith is the author of many books including: Forced Exit. Smith is a powerful speaker.

• Bobby Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo and works for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation.

• Catherine Frazee is the co-director of Ryerson University (RBC) Institute for Disability Studies, and the former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990 - 95). She is an extraordinarily gifted intellectual leader.

• Bert Dorenbos is the leader of Cry for Life in the Netherlands.

• Cheryl Eckstein is the founder of the Compassionate Health Care Network in Canada.

• Dr. Paul Byrne is a Neonatologist from Ohio and a recognized expert in the area of Brain Death.

• Dr Mark Mostert is an expert on the Nazi T4 - euthanasia program.

There has never been a Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide like this before.

The cost for the Symposium is:

$189 - regular, $100 - students or people with disabilities.

(Includes Friday lunch & dinner and Saturday lunch)

Friday only $125 - regular, $80 - students or people with disabilities (includes lunch and dinner)

Friday only $90 - regular, $50 student or people with disabilities. (includes lunch only)

Saturday only $90 regular, $50 student or people with disabilities. (includes lunch)



Register by contacting the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

Reserve your room by calling the Four Points Sheraton - Toronto Airport at: 1-800-368-7764 and indicate that you are reserving for the Euthanasia Symposium. The room rate is $109.00 per night.



For further registration information contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.



Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

www.epcc.ca

info@epcc.ca

1-877-439-3348

Abortion: A matter of human rights (right to life) or property rights (It's My body!)

As many people are aware, the CBC held  "The Great Canadian Wish List" on Facebook. Facebook members were asked to come in and register their support for one of the wishes listed, or create one of their own, with a feature story on the winning wish as of July 1st. When the Contest closed on July 1st, the number one wish one the list was "abolish abortion" and it beat out "keep abortion legal" by a significant margin. I  took a peek at what the pro-choicers were saying on "keep abortion legal". Almost to a person, they consider the pro-life movement to be a bunch of religious fanatics, or an intrusion on their rights by the church (which church?) or an affront to separation of Church and state Nothing an be further fom the truth, and I will illustrate my point by coming at the life issue from a non religious perspective.



Allow me to tell a story that will illustrate the non-religious background in which I initially came my pro-life views. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party. I ran in two elections (1988 and 1993) and at that time, I had never darkened the door of a church. I even ran for the leadership of that party. Nevertheless, I always opposed abortion. This may be partly because I am here only on account of a 16 year girl who made a tough decision to stay the course, at a time when "good girls didn't" and then give me up for adoption. Her choice, of which I was told by my adoptive parents very early on in life, taught me the intrinsic value of life.



In any case, there was a time when many if not most Libertarians held the view that the right to life was the foundation on which all other rights stood or fell, and many believed, correctly, that life began at conception, and that to allow abortion made a mockery of the whole concept of rights, let alone the right to life. Moreover, Libertarians also held to the view that one should not coerce others to pay for their actions, to wit, no welfare for those who choose not to work, no taxpayer bailouts for corporations who displayed fiscal irresponsibility, and that it followed that one could not use the life of an unborn child as the currency by which they could buy their way out of responsibility for their actions. When one engages in sex, contraceptives notwithstanding, the possibility of pregnancy nonetheless exists. By engaging in sexual relations one iscognizant of the fact that they are running this risk, so they should either accept this fact, and live with the result, or abstain, if they wish to avoid the risk entirely.



Sadly, the Libertarian movement has changed over the years, and it has been taken over by people who see property rights as trumping all others, that property rights, Many in broader society have also bought into this lie. In this case the "property" is one's body, trump the right to life. however, the right to life is the foundation from which all other rights are derived. If someone can take the life of another and not be held accountable, then it really was not a right at all, but rather a privelege that exists only at the whim of someone stronger. This is what we call the law of the jungle.



Property rights , in and of themselves are limited by servitudes or eminent domain, or other restrictions which deny absolute control for the sake of the greater good. For example, the authorities will step in if you put pesticides on your front lawn, because the harm to the environment, its ecosystems, and by extension, even people in the vicinity. By the same token, prior to adding on to your house, or erecting other permanent structures on your property, you must obtain permission from your municipality to do so, so that it can be ascertained that what you proposeto build is not a hazard or an eyesore to others. There are also zoning laws, so that no one can open a strip club on your nice residential street. So if you look upon the idea of the "right" to do whatever one wishes with their own body as an extension of property rights, you can see that because the rights of someone else are being infringed in (and in the worst possible way, In the case of an unborn child), we step in to defend their right to life, which, as I've pointed out trumps all other rights. With all rights, come responsibilities.



Today the libertarian movement is for the most part, pro-"choice", with the only restriction being that taxpayers not be required to pay for it. I know some people who argue, that there can be no restrictions on the point up to which an abortion can be performed, since, as her body is her "property" to dispose of as she wishes, she may, at any time, withdraw her consent for the baby to occupy her body. The result has been that most pro-lifers have left the Libertarian movement. The most notable case is the case of Dr. Ron Paul, who was the US Libertarian Party's Presidential nominee in 1988. Today Dr. Paul, a pro-life OB-GYN, sits as a Republican Congressman from Texas, and is currently in the running for the Republican Presidential nomination. (For the record, Dr. Paul is the only Presidential candidate, of either party that opposes the death penalty).

So if one accepts the premise that the right to life is the foundation on which all other rights are derived, and you can agree that some restrictions on property rights are neccessary, then one cannot subscribe to the fashionable libertarian notion that property rights have pre-eminence.



We need to be able to argue the pro-life position from a position that can be understood by unchurched people, who make up the majority of the pro-choicers and the general population and I hope I have provided you with some worthwhile ideas.

Next: Given the reasonable possibility that  Roe V. Wade may be struck down in the future, and that the abortion debate is now back on the table in Canada, whether the politicians want it to be or not, we need to be able to offer solutions for dealing with the what comes after abortion is illegal, if we are to get anywhere. The previous post deals with what comes after.

 

What Comes After?

When Pro-life activists either demonstrate, write letters, engage in debate or otherwise try to get their message out, One question that often comes up in one form or another is "What comes after?" should abortion be made illegal once again. I have posted this so that we can be prepared to defend what we are doing, and demonstrate that we have thought through many of the issues that society will face once we have removed the bloody stain of abortion from Canadian society.

About two months ago a YouTube video made by a pro-choice journalist with a video camera interviewing protesters outside an Illinois abortuary asked one simple, straightforward and blunt question: , "OK so you make abortion illegal: What should happen to women who obtain illegal abortions?"

The issue is addressed again in this article entitled "Gobsmacked by Logic: Will Pro-Lifers Succumb to Silencing Tactics?"

Talk about "gotcha!" politics. It was very sad to see the good people of our movement, being made to look like complete fools by this journalist. Not one of them was ready with any kind of cohesive answer.

As a movement, we DO need to be very prepared with ideas for what comes after, should we succeed in winning the battle for the foetal right to life. We need to address both the potential criminal side, as well as address other arguments that pro-choicers use against us.

My own view would be that women who obtain illegal abortions should not be jailed but the providers of such services should be locked up, and the key thrown away.

More importantly, we need to think about a support system which would render moot the arguments made by the pro-aborts.

In brief:

• Requiring the fathers of such children to provide financial support for the child for the duration of the pregnancy, if the child is to be given up for adoption, and if the child is to be kept, until the child reaches the age of majority.


• Making available state assistance for cases where the father cannot be located or assistance from the family of the woman is not possible. and providing for the funding of adult education programs so that women whose educaion is interrupted by a pregancy can get a new start once the child is born.


• Have government work with faith based groups to provide shelter and support for those who cannot support themselves during a crisis pregnancy. Such shelter and assistance can be provided by volunteer citizens who have extra room in their homes, as well as faith based groups who open group homes.


• To fast-track the adoption process so that suitable homes can be found quickly for children given for adoption, and to provide financial assistance to those who take special needs children into their homes.

As far as making it illegal without meting out stern punishment , one of the protestors had it right when she said that at least it removes the sanction of society via the government which represents the people.

In the view of many , What the women have gone through in having an abortion is enough punishment.All will be emotionally scarred, and some may suffer physcial consequences ranging from various types of cancer to infertility. The providers who profit from murder of children, and the deception and injury to the would-be mothers should be dealt with severely.

One good thing that came out of this video, is that it shattered the myth that pro-lifers are out to jail women. It was obvious that the protesters cared about both mother and child. No misogyny there.

What we can learn from the video , is that as a movement , we need to prepare solutions for when the time comes that it is banned, and be ready with intelligent, informed and innovative answers when the question "what comes after?" is inevitably asked of us. After all , we are the true progressives, and abortion, like slavery was 200 years ago, is the foremost human rights issue of our day.