Category Archives: Abortion

What is the Anglican Church of Canada's position on Abortion?

Posted on by
3

The number of abortions per year in Canada is running at about 105,000 or 30 abortions for 100 live births.

You would have to be forgiven for not knowing what the ACoC’s position is on this, because the ACoC has done its best to conceal its official views on abortion. From one perspective, this is strange, since the ACoC spends a considerable amount of time trumpeting its support for a just society –  informing us piously that Jesus himself was on the side of the oppressed – and conducting Justice Camps where backsliding communicants are sent for re-education. It is hard to imagine an act more unjust than the deliberate murder of an unborn child; but where are the clarion calls for justice from the ACoC? Silence.

Strangely enough, the Canadian Armed Forces site has a rare unequivocal statement by the ACoC:

Abortion is always the taking of a human life, in the view of the Church, and should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons.

This looks promising, but where does it come from?

This site provides a clue:

The official policy of the Anglican Church of Canada is that “abortion is always the taking of a human life and, in our view, should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons.”[12] It is common for “serious therapeutic reasons” to be interpreted very liberally, on the grounds that “both the rights and needs of women, and the rights and needs of the unborn, require protection.”

Footnote [12] points us to a page on the ACoC’s web site – now we are getting somewhere!

No we’re not:

Sorry! Page not found.

But this was at one time a sub-page of the “resources” page here:

Sadly, the “resources” page has, over time, devolved into Five Marks of Mission, Human Sexuality and New Beginnings. No room for 105,000 dead babies.

In spite of the ACoC’s reluctance to proclaim justice with a prophetic voice – or any voice – it is possible to glean a hint of where the ACoC stands from other sources. This one, for example (my emphasis):

Last October, REAL Women received an urgent request for information from the World-Wide Movement of Mothers, a pro-family organization based in Paris, France, with whom we work at the UN.

That organization had been requested to participate in the World March of Women 2000, which was being organized in Montreal.

We investigated the March at its request, and learned that it was being organized by La Féderation des Femmes du Québec, which advocates abortion on demand and lesbian rights.

We thought nothing more about the matter until early March of this year, when a pamphlet promoting the March 2000 was forwarded to us. We were shocked to read, according to this pamphlet, that the March had been endorsed not only by the usual assortment of radical feminist groups and the Canadian Congress of Labour (the latter spear-headed by pro-abortion / lesbian NDP activist, Nancy Riche), but also by the Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches in Canada.

This from 1989 is of historical interest, but sheds little light on the church’s view today:

ANGLICAN CHURCH AFFIRMS ITS POSITION ON ABORTION

In the light of the Government’s announcement of a new Abortion Bill, the Anglican Church reaffirms its position that both the rights and needs of women, and the rights and needs of the unborn, require protection.

One would think that Eric Beresford,  the Anglican Church of Canada’s co-ordinator of ethics and interfaith relations, could provide some answers.  He can’t; he admits in this article that he has no idea whether abortion is right or wrong. Anyway, marginalization, poverty, and powerlessness are what matter – except when applied to unborn babies:

At this point it is interesting that the positions adopted by the Anglican Church of Canada have insisted on the moral significance and dignity of fetal life and on the importance of the rights and needs of women who are clearly recognized as the primary decision makers.

How can these be held together? Only by recognizing the social context in which the needs of each are brought into conflict. Abortion is not a private tragedy but, at least in part, a social issue in which women’s experience of marginalization, poverty, and powerlessness are all central factors which need to be addressed in any adequate response to abortion.

All of this goes to show that, in spite of all the breast-beating about justice, standing up for the oppressed and prophetic discernment, the leaders of the Anglican Church of Canada do not have the guts to take a clear stand on one of the most important ethical issues of the 21st Century.

This gives me the creeps

Posted on by
3

There are about 115,000 abortions per day worldwide; women have the freedom to choose abortion as a birth control option. These are real babies – some of whom are alive after they are aborted – killed for convenience.

But wait! After you have disposed of the inopportune accident, for a mere $4000 you can buy a finely detailed replica with its own heartbeat and body temperature; so realistic that it will trigger those elusive hormones to make you feel good. But it makes absolutely no demands on you! Not a doll; a fake baby.

For more weirdness go here and here.

Illusion: a sanitised alternative to reality.

Free speech dies a slow death on Canadian campuses

Posted on by
Reply

From the National Post:

Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing” because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.

But in 2008, the University of Calgary wholly abandoned its commitment to free speech as a means of pursuing truth, and demanded the pro-life students erect their signs “facing inwards” — so that passers-by could not see the signs. While the university described its demand as a “reasonable compromise,” the practical effect was akin to total censorship.

[T]he university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse. It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.

The University of Calgary receives over $500-million from taxpayers each year. If it does not reacquaint itself with the ideals of tolerance, it may find taxpayers becoming less tolerant of footing such a hefty bill to support an institution which so blatantly disregards its own mission.

Displaying the signs “facing inwards” — so that passers-by could not see the signs and claiming this to be a compromise is an interesting approach by the university administration. It is an attempt to pay lip service to free speech by allowing students to display what they want while trying to ensure that no-one sees it. Like allowing a contentious book to be published, but only if it uses invisible ink.

The argument that photographs of aborted babies are sufficiently gory that the public should be spared being visually assaulted by them is a rather poor one since it views the depiction of  reality as more offensive than the reality itself. Photographs of murdered babies are less tolerable than the act of murdering babies.

And politically correct gore is allowed.

Some people think killing babies is wrong

Posted on by
2

And, thank God, at least one major denomination agrees:

While President Obama’s special envoy tries to broker peace in the Middle East and the White House dangles an olive branch before a near-nuclear Iran, a new foreign policy confrontation is in the making … with the Vatican.

After he ended a ban last week on federal funding to international groups that perform or promote abortions, Obama is taking heat from a political powerhouse overseas: the Roman Catholic Church.

Vatican officials said last weekend that they were disappointed by the president’s decision to reverse the so-called Mexico City policy.

“Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst,” said Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, a top official with the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life.

“If this is one of President Obama’s first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we’re heading quickly toward disappointment,” said Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Academy.

How this will affect Obama’s appeal to Catholic voters remains to be seen. According to exit polls, the president got 53 percent of the Catholic vote in November — 13 percent more than John Kerry, a Catholic, got in 2004.

Considering that this was pretty predictable, I can’t help wondering why Obama got 53% of the Catholic vote.

What is Obama's pay grade?

Posted on by
1

When asked by Rick Warren whether life begins at conception, Obama had this to say:

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question  with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

If human life does begin at conception, then abortion snuffs out a life: it is equivalent to murder. How is it possible for Obama to support a position that depends on a conclusion that is ‘above my  pay grade’ unless he is lying or stupid?

Either way, one thing is clear: he should be paid less.

You shall not murder. Exodus 20:13.

Posted on by
Reply

More on botched abortions. Abortions where the baby lives, that is. Read it all here.

When Congress was considering the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, two nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. They described several instances in which babies who were moving and breathing after induced abortions were left to die. The committee report quoted Jill Stanek: “Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact spine. On another occasion, an aborted baby was left to die on the counter of the Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel.” The committee report also quoted Shelly Lowe, a lab technician at Bethesda North Medical Center in Cincinnati. A young woman who had undergone just the first cervix-opening phase of a partial-birth abortion gave birth in the emergency room. The doctor placed the 22-week-old baby in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab. According to the report, when Ms. Lowe “saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air. ‘I don’t think I can do that,’ Ms. Lowe reportedly said. ‘This baby is alive.’” Lowe asked permission to hold the baby until she died. She wrapped the child she dubbed “Baby Hope” in a blanket and sang to her. Breathing room air without any other supports, Baby Hope lived for three hours.

I’ve received a number of letters from viewers. This one caught my eye: “I am a pediatrician. When I was a pediatric resident on a neonatal intensive care rotation, we were routinely called to … resuscitate infants. In one instance I was called to pronounce a baby dead who had been born an hour earlier after a failed abortion. We were not called to resuscitate the baby immediately after the delivery as the intent was abortion. … I write to attest that babies are sometimes born alive after abortion and then put aside to die.”

The BAIPA was designed to ensure that in those rare cases in which a baby marked for abortion happens to survive — that the child will be immediately accorded full human and constitutional rights. The measure passed the U.S. House by a vote 380 to 15 but was blocked in the Senate. When a “neutrality clause” was inserted to the effect that the law should not be construed to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, the measure was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law in 2002.

At the time, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. An almost exact copy of the federal bill was introduced in 2001. Obama opposed it, saying, “I mean it, it would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” Even though the baby would be completely separated from the mother. In 2003, the Illinois legislature added a neutrality clause to the bill, making it a virtual clone of the federal legislation. As chairman of the committee considering the bill, Obama again opposed it, saying, “… an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman …”

Barack Obama is a charming and intelligent man. But there is no other way to interpret his position on BAIPA than this: A woman who chooses an abortion is entitled to a dead child no matter what. That is an abortion extremist.

The story of an abortion survivor

Posted on by
2

If this doesn’t move you, nothing will. Gianna Jessen:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Here is the ad featuring her from BornAliveTruth followed by an interview on Hannity and Colmes:

Here is her medical record, birth certificate and a 1978 newspaper clipping.

And here is Gianna’s testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996:

My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a “botched abortion”, a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.

My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother’s daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak …

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes…

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state’s capitol buildings. The quote says, “Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct.” Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.