Tag Archives: Abortion

The murder of an abortionist

Posted on by
17

From the National Post

A Kansas doctor who was a controversial provider of so-called “late-term” abortions was shot and killed at his church on Sunday, local media reported.

The Wichita Eagle newspaper reported that 67-year-old George Tiller, a longtime target of anti-abortion activists, was shot to death as he walked into services at at Reformation Lutheran Church.

Police are searching for a white male who fled the scene after shooting Tiller with a handgun, local media reported.

Local television station KAKE said on its website that sources close to the investigation and the doctor confirmed that Tiller was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after emergency crews arrived.

Police Captain Brent Allred did not name the victim, but he classified the case as high-profile and said the victim has been the target of violence in the past, the station said.

Tiller’s clinic in Wichita has been the site of mass protests by anti-abortion groups and was bombed in 1985. Tiller was shot and wounded by an abortion opponent in 1993.

Abortions are generally considered late-term when they are performed after the 20th week of gestation on fetuses potentially old enough to survive outside the womb.

Since I believe life starts at conception, I also believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human and is, therefore, wrong; a late term abortion is the most grisly and evil variety of abortion, since the baby is sometimes born alive and then killed or left to die and – even for those who do not believe that life starts at conception – is very clearly a baby.

So when a supposed doctor who performs late term abortions is murdered, how should Christians react?

From the perspective of executing temporal justice it is necessary to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s: it seems clear that only the state should mete out justice – particularly lethal justice. So the killer of George Tiller will have to face the penalty for doing what he probably believed the state should have done for him.

From a Christian perspective, even though Tiller’s killer will have to face state justice, could his action still be ethically justified? Some Christian pro-life advocates would claim that no life can legitimately be taken so their answer would be “no”; they see this as a mark of consistency. First, I think this view is faulty in that it fails to acknowledge the state’s legitimate role in punishing the guilty – a role that has biblical support (Rom 13:3 ff) – in order to restrain evil and maintain order. Even though countries like Canada do not have the death penalty, all countries at the very least incarcerate criminals and are prepared to use lethal force to protect their citizens: a person with a pro-life view that refuses to take a life ever would not be able to live in any earthly society without hypocrisy.

Second, if it is legitimate for the state to take a life in some circumstances, can it ever be for an individual? A convincing case was made by a Christian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for murdering Hitler on the grounds that it would ultimately save lives and be a lesser evil than allowing him to live. Could the same argument be used here for George Tiller? The murderer might have thought so, but I think not for the simple reason that others will take Tiller’s place to continue his gruesome work; were that not the case, the lesser evil argument might apply.

Obama sounds like Rowan Williams

Posted on by
2

A modern foible is to take two irreconcilable viewpoints, either of which could conceivably be correct, and pretend to synthesise them into a middle ground which almost certainly is not. This is peddled as some kind of virtue: it’s common in the Anglican Church and appears to be an Obama preoccupation:

President Obama used the controversy surrounding his Notre Dame address Sunday as a lesson on the need to bridge cultural divides in America, as he urged graduates to seek common ground on issues, like abortion, that stir passion on both sides.

What common ground could there possibly be between those who believe life begins at conception and therefore should be protected, and those who believe a foetus is a cluster of disposable cells. This apparently:

On the specific issue of abortion, Obama urged the public to at least agree that it is a “heart-wrenching” decision for any woman, and that the country should work to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies and making adoption more available.

“When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground,” Obama said.

Rowan Williams expresses similar sentiments in trying to bring together those who agree and disagree with same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church:

The challenge is, “how can those who share that cost, that sense of profound anxiety about how to make the Gospel credible, how are they to come together for at least some measure of respect to emerge, so that they can recognize the cost that the other bears and also recognize the deep seriousness about Jesus and the Gospel that they share?”

In both cases, the common ground has nothing to do with the actual issue, but is merely the intensity with which each side holds its belief. In reality this is little more than a sleight of hand on the part of liberals to pacify the opposition while the real agenda continues unimpeded.

Both Obama and Williams have placed a higher value on attaining a bogus middle ground than on truth: it explains how the West has lost its way and how the Anglican church – hot in pursuit – has too.

Hundreds of Anglican priests in March for life in Ottawa

Posted on by
Reply

That was a joke.

There is a March for life in Ottawa today and 10,000 people are expected to attend. As Michael Coren observes, the media is ignoring it. What I would like to know is, since the Anglican Church of Canada is so keen on social justice, where is Fred Hiltz, Colin Johnson, or John Chapman? In fact, will any Anglican priest attend to demonstrate their support for protecting the most vulnerable members of our society?Add an Image

Today, the 12th annual March for Life will take place in Ottawa. Up to 10,000 people, half of them under the age of 25, will walk, sing and pray for an end to abortion in Canada. If past patterns are repeated, there will be hardly any mention of the event in the media — a contrast with the numerous protests a fraction of the size that tend to receive full and fulsome coverage.

There has never been any abusive or violent behaviour from the participants — though there are occasionally obscene and provocative gestures from opponents — and numerous MPs and religious and ethnic leaders will attend. The march is also intensely reflective of the authentic Canada, unlike most other demonstrations: Conservative and Liberal, able-bodied and handicapped, black and white, Muslim, Christian and Jewish, from every region and background.

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.

Pope vs Pelosi

Posted on by
Reply

From here:
It would appear from the two statements issued by the Vatican and the speaker’s office that Nancy Pelosi and Pope Benedict did not share the same views during her audience with the pontiff.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican Wednesday morning, but may not have had a meeting of the minds if the two statements from their offices are any indication.

No journalists were at the 15-minute encounter and the Vatican and the speaker’s offices have not released any photos. However, according to their statements it appears the pope and the politician attended two different get-togethers.

“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development,” the Vatican wrote, having released the statement moments before the two met.

Several hours later, Pelosi’s office gave her take on the tete-a-tete.

“It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today,” Pelosi said in a statement released hours after the meeting. “In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show his Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.”

Nancy Pelosi, pro-abortion Catholic, evidently isn’t interested in the Pope’s views on protecting innocent life and, true to liberal form, is the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear, preferring to talk about less personally demanding topics such as world hunger and global warming. I wonder if she rode a bike to visit the Pope or flew in an aeroplane at taxpayer expense.

The Pope’s reference to “requirements of the natural moral law” as a defence for protecting unborn babies is interesting since it extends the principle of protecting the unborn – quite rightly – beyond Roman Catholicism to all who still believe in right and wrong: almost everyone on the planet with the possible exception of Anglicans.

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.