Ecumenical worship before the march:
Bishop Don Harvey:
Bishop Charlie and Rev. Dorothy arrive:
Some of our lot:
Plenty of cameras:
Bishop Charlie Masters opens the march with prayer:
And off we go:
I know it’s hard to believe, but not everyone agrees with us:
Most do:
After the march:
Thank you for these powerful images. The Lord sees the little ones even when we don’t.
Thank you David for these pictures that take us to Ottawa and let us share in your trip and for standing up to be counted for those who can’t stand up or themselves. You are all a great blessing to our Lord, and to those who know you. Thanks.
No mention on MSN Canada web page anything on the March for Life but the concern for the death of frogs was covered. http://news.ca.msn.com/world/dancing-frogs-newly-discovered-in-india-face-extinction-1.
Of course women regret their abortions. Who believes abortion is fun? The level of this debate is stridently adolescent.
…and yet, you are right in the thick of it making ad hominem attacks.
Ad hominem? I haven’t mentioned anyone!
I’m categorising the level of debate. The statement “I regret my abortion” says nothing about abortion as an issue, as David neatly demonstrates with his example about teeth downthread.
“The level of this debate is stridently adolescent” Glad to hear you weren”t referring to the previous three posters.
I’m talking about the placards in the photos.
So the placards are “stridently adolescent”?
Yes. They’re a emotion-baiting soundbite that makes zero argument.
The placards are not an argument. They are an admission.
Vincent,
Just because something isn’t fun doesn’t necessarily mean you regret doing it. If I have my tooth filled I don’t usually enjoy the process but I don’t regret it.
Some of the women at the march talked about why they regret having an abortion; many feel shame and guilt because they came to realise that they killed their own baby.
If you are genuinely interested, take a look at Silent No More. There you can read testimonies from 1807 women as to why they regret having an abortion.
I think the placards are conveying an important message, that being that these women are saying that they now know things that they did not know at the time of their abortions, and that if they only knew then what they know now that they would not have had their abortions.
This raises a pertinent issue within the abortion debate. Should women be offered information and/or counseling before a requested abortion is proceeded with? The “pro-choice” people have already said that such an offer is a hindering and interfering with the rights of women to control their own bodies and thus are completely opposed to it.
I of course have to raise this question. What other serious medical service is provided to anyone in our country without a full consultation from a qualified medical professional first being given? I was not able to just show up at my local hospital for a sleep study to evaluate my condition of sleep apnea without first having been referred by my family doctor. So why is it that women can just show up at an abortion clinic without any referrals, consultations, or counselling?
Any idea on the number of people who showed up?
Around 23,000.
I can find you people who regret their abortion without believing it was the wrong thing to do, Anonymuse.
So what? There hae been many people who have regretted a lot of things they have done, sometimes utterly horrible things, without ever conceding that what they did may have been wrong by any reasonable standard. With respect, your statement does not support,, much less sustain, any point you think you may be trying to make.
Vincent,
The point you seem determined to make continues to elude me; no matter. Perhaps it would help if you explained clearly what your position is on abortion.
Not something I would encourage anyone to have. Not something my wife and I would consider. But for a society, a necessary right. Female education and reproductive freedom are too often correlated to prosperity and equity in society to ignore or prevent.
Vincent,
You haven’t actually told us whether you believe having an abortion is right or wrong.
You do say, though, that it is a “necessary right”, for “society”; I take that to mean that you believe all women have the right to abort their babies, although you seem to think that abortion is particularly appealing to uneducated or poor women.
So either you think: a) an unborn baby is not a human being with the usual rights we afford to humans – not being murdered in this case or b) an unborn baby is a human being but has no rights as such, simply because she is still in her mother’s womb.
If you believe a), I would maintain that you have a logical problem: you must believe a baby becomes a human being only once it completely exits its mother’s uterus, an arbitrary point that has no scientific or ethical justification.
If you believe b) then you would probably go along with “ethicist” Peter Singer who has stated that it would be acceptable to kill newborn babies up to around one year old if their lives do not live up to his quality of life standards. This is at least a logical position although one that most people would regard as morally repugnant.
Now that I think about it, we’ve done this one 18 months ago or thereabouts, unless I’m irretrievably nuts (which is not impossible).
I believe in solving social problems.
Forcing a woman to go through a process that I, as a man, will never have to go through, is not a good way to solve social problems, seems to me. And being categorically against abortion entails coercion, otherwise it’s hand wringing and you can do that all you like but why should anyone listen?
I’m more concerned with actual human beings actually born and actually living now than with unborn ones.
Vincent,
You have not addressed my argument.
Your _position_ is that abortion is morally wrong.
Any line to determine when a foetus becomes a human being is going to be contested. That argument is irrelevant: people will determine their position on either side of that line, regardless of where anyone says it falls. That argument, such as it is, is not going to convince anyone. It serve merely to reassure one in one’s convictions. Furthermore, bringing the line back as far as it can go, why wouldn’t we say that menstruation or male masturbation is the preemptive killing of unborn children? I’m not actually interested in your answer — it won’t change anything for anyone.
I am _extremely_ interested in what you have to say about my contention that stating that abortion is morally wrong, full stop, demands lobbying for laws that would force pregnant women to carry their pregnancy to term.
My position is that abortion is not categorically wrong. It depends on the specific context. I can imagine situations where an abortion would be a great wrong. I can imagine situations where it would be right. My position is that in real life, we sometimes need to do things that we regret.
That’s as directly as I can state my position. The reaons behind it, once again: reproductive rights seem to correlate closely with social prosperity and equity, the suffering of actual people already here on Earth trumps that of people not yet arrived, and I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
The number of souls present has its full support from those scores of thousands who could not be there; and the now untold millions in this great global sin who will never be there. Thank you to each and all for your courageous witness to life and life eternal.
Vincent,
Response to your last comment.
You still haven’t addressed the argument.
If you are not prepared, as you put it, to draw a line on when a baby becomes a human being then you have effectively said that babies outside the womb are not human – nor are children – nor adults. If you concede that the category “human being” exists, there has to be a line somewhere; there has to be a moment when someone becomes a human being.
If you believe, as I do, that an unborn baby is a human being whose life should be protected, then a more accurate way of stating the point would be: “demands lobbying for laws that would protect the unborn during the mother’s pregnancy.”
I find it interesting that your moral grounding appears to be almost entirely relativistic and subjective; it’s no wonder we are at cross-purposes.
You appear to have inadvertently drawn a line: “arrive” is “born” and that is your line.
That was my point. We all draw the line somewhere. But we’ll never ever agree about it, not all of us. If you argue about the line you’ll never get anywhere. All you’re doing is wring your hands. And in the meantime, messy real life is happening around you.
How do you protect the unborn during the mother’s pregnancy if not by forcing the mother to carry the pregnancy to term? That’s the real thing. That’s tangible. That’s not something you can argue about: if you want that unborn child to be protected from the mother who wants to terminate the pregnancy, you can only chain her up. If she wants an abortion, it’s the _only_ way.
I’m not prepared to do that. Are you?
Vincent,
I’m glad that you finally admit that you do draw a line on when a baby becomes a human being and that it is at birth. I return, then, to the point I made earlier: this is not supported by science or ethics or, indeed, common sense. It is arbitrary and not particularly logical.
When you say the “real thing” and “tangible” I presume you mean the important thing; an abortion is just as real and tangible as a pregnancy. The problem here is that you are presupposing that the unborn baby is not human based on where you have drawn your line – and, of course, in spite of your denials and wriggling, that is why the line is important.
You are not seriously suggesting that, since it is the only way, when abortion was limited by law in Canada women were chained up are you?
I thought you wanted to prevent abortions. Abortions still happened a hell of a lot in Canada when it was limited by law.
Oh, you don’t want to prevent abortions. You just want to make sure that women are punished afterwards. Or die getting an illegal abortion. Well, you’re right, that’s how crime works. This is very depressing.
I never said I don’t draw a line, read my posts back: I said it doesn’t matter where the line is drawn because no one will agree on it. That ship has sailed, in any case.
You win. Well, here anyway.
And ships can sink. Or return to port. Or whatever metaphor you want to use. In any event, I very much doubt that the women in the march were proposing that women be chained or die. I doubt the men were either, and I am somewhat saddened by the superficiality of your postings.
Are you telling me that abortion is a complex issue? When your position is that it should never happen?
Well, since you obviously don’t understand what I am talking about it is not surprising that I, and others, are having difficulty understanding what you are talkiing about. However, to help you out, understand this; abortion is a complex issue, and I never said it should never happen. I am willing to bet that the majority of those in the March for Life would agree with me.