Thanks to medical science, we now know that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy.  It can lead to diseases like emphysema and lung cancer, and increase the risks of heart disease and stroke.  So we have acted swiftly on that information.  In one generation, our attitude about smoking has undergone a remarkable transformation.  Where smoking was once commonplace, and homes everywhere had ashtrays, even if only for visiting smokers, today it’s almost shocking to see someone light up.  Banned from airplanes, offices and many restaurants, smoking – and smokers – are viewed with a kind of disdain at worst, pity at best.  TV shows and movies rarely show people smoking, except when they’re villains.  The dangers of smoking are taught to young people with almost religious zeal.  Most modern parents who found evidence that their teenagers were smoking would haul them down to the nearest cancer ward for a close up look at the consequences of smoking, or at least to their doctor, who would undoubtedly back up parental warnings that smoking is dangerous to their health.

Now substitute the words “casual sex” for “smoking.”
 
Thanks to medical science, we now know that casual sex is unhealthy.
 
Not just because of the myriad of sexually transmitted diseases it can cause, to say nothing of the unwanted pregnancies it can create, but because of what it does to the human brain.
 
To view rest of article, click here

In my previous blog, I promised to address areas where abortion advocates have attempted to tarnish pro-lifers as hypocritical. In particular, since many proponents of abortion like to promote themselves as “pro-choice” and we, their pro-life opponents as “anti-choice,” I wish to take up the gauntlet of establishing why “pro-life” is an apt label. In a pair of articles previously included in our regular newsletter, I already addressed several areas where many “pro-choicers” virulently oppose choice in order to further abortion, and I will continue here to demonstrate why pro-lifers rightfully deserve their chosen label.

The previous blog tackled how it is possible for pro-lifers to also defend captial punishment. This time, I plan to answer the favoured perception that pro-aborts have fought to sully pro-lifers with - the claim that pro-lifers contradict themselves by engaging in or supporting violent or murderous acts against abortionists. The question then is, how can one claim to be pro-life through the use of murder?

The short answer is, you can’t. The contradicion cannot be reconciled. Let me demonstrate through an example from the area of environmental activism. Many of you may be familiar with “eco-terrorists.” These are fringe organizations that claim to be working on behalf of protecting wildlife and the environment. These groups seek to further their message often by creating the types of disasters that greatly exacerbate the destruction and devastation they claim to be committed to ending. They have started forest fires, set fire to car dealerships and engaged in various forms of mayhem while proclaiming to be champions of nature and the environment.

They are rightly marginalized as fringe elements with no link to other prminent environmental and animal rights groups such as the Sierra Club and P.E.T.A. While these agroups are provocative and extreme in their own way, no one is giving extensive media coverage to acts of eco-terrorism with headlines like, “Environmentalists wreak more havoc across midwest.”

The same cannot be said for pro-life groups. Those who have used violence against abortionists, including the most recent murder of Dr. Tiller, and clinics have been a few fringe groups or individuals with absolutely no affiliation with truly pro-life organizations. Pro-life groups furthermore give no tacit or covert endorsement of any such action, as overwhelmingly demonstrated by local, national and international pro-life groups’ public condemnation of the killing of Dr. Tiller’s murder. To emphasize my point, I’d like to relate a couple of details of my own journey into pro-life work.

In 2000, I was attempting to pursue a private family counselling career. I came across Halton Pro-Life and thought it might be a resource for information on STDs, since I knew STDs had been rapidly spreading, but the risks seemed to be progressively minimized since I had been in school (25 years ago!). I wanted all possible information for potential clients to become fully informed.

Abortion was an issue for which I had a strong visceral dislike, but accepted that it couldn’t be killing or there wouldn’t be such mainstream acceptance, and the prolife fight certainly would have penetrated the media and obviously my church. I had no personal investment, but from the wisdom I found from the pro-lifers I spoke with, I knew I needed to learn the facts for myself and for others. The science was irrefutable, so the tough part was in my preconceptions that pro-life was largely a Catholic issue and I had been exposed to the high profile stories of abortion clinic bombings and assassinations (or attempts) against abortionists.

The more I immersed myself, the more I learned how far my perception was from reality. While the Halton Pro-Life literature included the phrase “we support only peaceful means to prmote our message,” and I was convinced of the sincerity of those with whom I had spoken, I needed to be assured (and so did my wife) that this was not a fringe organization. When I was invited to join the Board of Directors, I attended meetings for a full year before I could fully test my impressions of the organization and assure my wife this was a safe eneavour in which to involve myself.

That was seven years ago and I look back at that episode and shake my head. The most disturbing aspect is that I could adopt sucha mythological perception of abortion, pro-life and pro-lifers because this falacy has been able to take hold in mainstream culture. The absurdity of the specious, circular, self-serving and meaningless arguments of those leading the abortion cause have succeeded in peddling an indictment of society as individuals, demonstrating how those controlling the message can shape perception.

No, it is not possible to be pro-life and support violence in order to achieve one’s objectives. The entire pro-life message is that shortcuts don’t work and facts do matter. I ask that everyone become informed about prenatal development, abortion and all the life issues from all the sources you can.

I welcome your thoughts. Please leave a comment or feel free to ask a question, and I would be pleased to respond. I believe a thinking pro-choicer is a pro-lifer at the embryonic stage.

Tom Bartlett, President of the Board

It is a tragedy that Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot to death while at church this past weekend.

Halton Pro-Life has never condoned violence of any sort to advance our message of respect for all human beings from conception to natural death. To do so would invalidate the very nature of our beliefs.

While we abhor the violence done to unborn children in the womb and their mothers through abortion, we respect the abortionist’s right to life also and encourage respectful dialogue with, and peaceful prayer for, those involved in the abortion industy.

Many pro-life leaders have spoken clearly to this point, including U.S. based Operation Rescue, who stated:

“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”

Tiller has had many charges brought against him, the latest including: “performing an abortion on a fetus that was viable without having a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with him; unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or professional incompetency; and commitment of acts likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public.”

Tiller was known for performing abortions on 5 month old unborn children who could survive outside their mother’s womb.

Though a suspect has been detained, there are no details regarding motives. I has been suggested that it could be someone who has been adversely affected by Tiller’s actions, maybe a father of a child who was aborted. We can only speculate at this point.

Again, Halton Pro-Life condemns this act of violence and encourages peaceful means to create a culture that respects and protects all human life.

Joanne Matters, Executive Director

By Naomi Lakritz, The Calgary Herald May 25, 2009 8:28 AM

Last week was a time of discussions about life and death. U.S. President Barack Obama talked about abortion when he gave the commencement speech at Indiana’s Notre Dame University. And Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde reintroduced for the third time her private member’s bill decriminalizing euthanasia.

The parallels between abortion and euthanasia are striking. They’re both about when — and where along the continuum — it should be legal to take someone else’s life. The short, simple answer, before someone trots out all the “yeah, buts,” is: never.

Obama, who intends to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which permits partial-birth abortions, called on pro-life and pro-choice factions to find common ground.

Unless pro-choicers are prepared to acknowledge the scientific fact that a fetus as early as four weeks after conception is a human being with a beating heart and brain waves, and not a mere clump of cells whose humanness is relative only to its degree of wantedness, then no common ground is possible.

Obama made some redundant points when he said “let’s make adoption more available” and “let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

Adoption is already widely available through state and provincial governments and private agencies. What really needs to happen is for pro-choicers to stop limiting their talk to abortion when they discuss choice, and start promoting adoption. They need to talk in terms of women choosing life, as in putting their babies up for adoption, not in choosing death by condemning those unborn babies to being ripped apart and consigned to oblivion.

As far as providing care and support for women to see their pregnancies through to the end, there are plenty of pro-life agencies, both secular and faith-based, that are busy doing just that.

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel; there is only a need to promote the existence of the wheel so people can take advantage of it.

Obama also made two nonsensical points. The first was when he said, “Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies.”

Unless “we” are in the room at the propitious moment, handing out contraceptives to an amorous man and an ovulating woman, that is probably not a realistic goal.

The second point was when he urged abortion providers to get women to consider other options. Not likely, Mr. President. Each one of those babies consigned to the aforementioned oblivion means money in the pockets of the abortion providers. When death equals profit, those who make their living from it are not going to sabotage their earning potential by taking the moral high road.

The pro-life slogan has always been “choose life.”

How interesting that the opposing faction never says “choose death,” although that is exactly what opting for both abortion and euthanasia entail. Their approach is not so straightforward; they prefer to couch their ideology in euphemism. Lalonde, for example, refers to assisted suicide as the “ultimate compassion.”

But compassion for whom? For the health-care system, which saves money by moving elderly patients out of their beds and into their graves more quickly? For the patient’s relatives, who really ought to be spared all the messy, depressing, nasty realities of what death is like when it is allowed to take its natural course?

In her lucid moments during her last year of life, my mother would ask: “When can I go home? I want to get out of here.”

My brother did not tell her that she would have to go to a nursing home if she left the hospital, because she couldn’t live alone anymore. Instead, he would promise her, “When you’re well enough.” She had dementia and suffered a lot of pain, but she still wanted to live; she still had hope. She still had her sights set on getting well.

Yet, she would have fit to a T the description of the type of person Lalonde has in mind as a candidate for the “ultimate compassion,” someone who “continues … to experience severe physical … pain without any prospect of relief.”

Who dares to presume that within a patient who does not seem lucid, who is in pain, or who can’t speak, there is no spark of life that burns stubbornly and does not want to be extinguished?

Although Lalonde’s bill comes with requirements for the patient to furnish written requests to die, 10 days apart, or to designate someone else to make such a decision on his or her behalf, the Netherlands’ nightmarish experimenting with euthanasia has led to doctors killing patients who never gave their consent.

Life is a continuum and there is no demarcation zone on it where life is more hazily defined or has lesser value. I think if one must err, somewhere, at any place on the continuum, then it must always be on the side of life.

Naomi Lakritz writes for the Calgary Herald.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

This article is reprinted from the Ottawa Citizen.

Showing a tenacity of conviction rarely seen in leadership, the president of Notre Dame stood steadfast and refused to relent.  This would be admirable if his decision to stand by President Obama delivering the commencement address weren’t a betrayal of the position he was there to uphold.  Those who mounted the strong opposition to Obama’s presence, several of whom were ironically arrested for their efforts, were those espousing the values that the president and the institution of Notre Dame had been tasked to uphold.  Now that the deed is done, it is appropriate to evalute what took place based on the message presented through Obama’s words and deeds.

Obama spoke nobly of the concept of finding common ground between people of conviction.  For starters, he made clear what he thought of those he considers unreasonable and who “cling to outworn prejudices” and those would be people who hold to uncompromising opposition to abortion - the Pope, for example.  After all, his call for finding ”common ground” between those on both sides of the abortion debate means that outright opposition to abortion is not a position of compromise.  Let’s put this in context; the man advocating harmony between pro-lifers and pro-abortionists staunchly defends abortion under all circumstances, at all stages (including partial-birth abortion), and even supports infanticide if an abortion attempt fails.  He has also reinstated funding of the U.N.’s population control efforts through UNFPA which, among other heinous international efforts, is invested in China’s forced abortion/sterilization through their one-child policies.  For more details on Obama’s anti-life views, please refer to my former blog entry “A Different View of Obama.”

For those thinking I am too critical, consider the following… Given that Obama doesn’t see himself as an extremist, even though some of his views are too extreme for famed abortionist Henry Morgantaler, who saddled Canada with abortion on demand, if he is so blinded, how can he pretend to call for common ground and what would that possibly look like?

Obama defended the fact that reasonable people can disagree, but asks that we don’t reduce those who disagree to characatures.  This is the man who talked about conservative Christians as bitterly clinging to guns and religion.  He even repeated the reference of clinging to religion (as well as outworn prejudice) in his Notre Dame speech.  It was also a homeland security brief from his administration that put those who oppose abortion on the terrorist watchlist.  He even referenced a story in his pursuit of common ground of a pro-life Christian who was rightly troubled by the reference on Obama’s website during his presidential campaign that he would “fight right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”  His effort to mollify this man was to change the wording on his website while making clear he did not change his position.  This I think perfectly describes how Obama does business and what took place during his commencement address.  

Obama spoke positively of the notion that Catholics should hold on to their Catholic traditions.  On the other hand he recommended they have “open hearts” and “open minds,” suggesting they adopt ”universal rather than parachial principles.”  By this he means that Catholics should maintain traditions, but be willing to reconsider, adopt, or more accurately reject the core principles.  This is exactly the reverse of Biblical faith that tells us the universal principles that are immutable while how we express our faith necessarily adapts and changes over time.  Obama’s frequent references to Notre Dame being a ”lighthouse” has no value if it compromises truth to the prevailing cultural zeitgeist as Obama has and promotes.

Other comments he made were outlandish and odious.  He spoke of promoting civil rights for all children after putting forth his pro-abortion rhetoric.  To rousing applause, he contrasted those who oppose “stem cell research” while the parent of a child with Juvenile Diabetes seeks hope for a cure.  This brazen misrepresentation of reality is standard operating procedure for pro-aborts as I have never met anyone in pro-life circles who oppose ethical stem cell research, only Embryonic Stem Cell Research that destroys innocent lives and, unlike the highly successful use of adult stem cells, has led to no cures.  He also had the audacity to speak about wanting to base policies on “sound science and clear ethics” despite the fact this would automatically reject all abortions and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.  His suggestion that we all recognise that the decision to have an abortion is not made lightly is also a reversal of reality when it is pro-lifers who highlight the concerns and promote options (i.e. maternity homes, crisis pregnancy centers, and post-abortion counselling centres) while abortion advocates including Obama work against even informed consent and parental consent legislation.

Obama is a huckster who successfully won over a fawning audience swooning over his vapid and disingenuous rhetoric.  He promoted students to reconsider their faith by claiming “the ultimate irony of faith is that it admits doubt.”  In reality, faith is a matter of believing in things we cannot see, but conclude to be true.  It is not something people of faith are to cling to, but embrace, live out and proudly share with others.  Changing our views out of convenience, pragmatism, or to appeal to populist notions is no longer faith, but secular humanism.  Instead of misleading students, Obama should have been schooled in how to understand the reality of abortion much as Mother Teresa when she attended the Clinton White House and challenged that there will no peace in the world until there is peace in the womb.  

To accept Obama’s premise of compromise means there is really no justifiable opposition to abortion.  Once you let go of the fact that making allowances for abortion means justifying the killing of innocent children, there is no footing to oppose any abortions.  The lifting of restrictions on the innocent taking of human life allows society to suggest that anytime you stand in the way of any abortion in certain situations you oppose a woman’s right to choose.  The Notre Dame administration and students basking in Obama’s praise for being so open-minded fail to recognize the core message of the Christian faith - you can’t compromise with evil.

Tom Bartlett

Board President of Halton Pro-life

There’s only one more week to gather pledges for Halton Pro-Life’s 3rd annual Walk for Life walkathon!

Click walkathon-09-poster to download poster.

This family event takes place Saturday, May 30th with a 5 km walk and 10 km walk, beginning and ending at St. Dominic Church,  2415 Rebecca St., Oakville.

Registration for 10 km walk begins at 8:30 am and walk starts at 9:00 am.

Registration for 5 km walk begins at 9:30 am and walk starts at 10:00 am.

Both walks finish at 11:00 am when all are welcome to stay and enjoy a BBQ and draw prizes.

Halton Pro-Life hopes to raise $10,000 toward our life-saving educational pro-life work!

Click copy-of-pledge-sheet to download pledge-sheet and plan to join us next Saturday!

I was driving in the car with my husband between Kingston and Toronto, when we tuned into Sirius satellite radio and caught President Obama’s introduction by Fr. John Jenkins and his commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame graduation ceremony this past Sunday.

It is well-known that Obama’s invitation by N D president Fr. Jenkins to receive an honorary law degree and give the commencement address has fueled a firestorm of controversy among pro-lifers in the US and worldwide.

It would be like Planned Parenthood inviting Pope Benedict to receive an honour and give a speech. Obviously, that wouldn’t happen!

Though Fr. Jenkins waxed eloquent about Obama’s contribution to the world stage, and Obama himself spoke almost poetically about the need to have a “fair-minded debate on abortion”, I was not convinced.

The old adage, “actions speak louder than words,” is most fitting when it comes to Obama.

Let us not be fooled by Obama’s gift of oratory. Though easy to ears, we would do well to discern his words carefully, lest we be deceived.

Click here for report on Obama’s first 100 days in office.

Joanne Matters, Executive Director Halton Pro-Life

I have just participated in the 12th Annual March for Life on Parliament Hill in our nations’s capital, marking 40 years of abortion-on-demand in Canada and the loss of over 3 million children to abortion. Once again, thousands of men, women, children and youth gathered on the Hill to peacefully protest the lack of protection for unborn children in our country.

This morning, Notre Dame Basilica was crowded with pro-lifers who celebrated Mass with several Catholic clergy, including Archbishop Thomas Collins, Archdiocese of Toronto, who offered words of encouragement following Mass. He reminded us to keep in mind the “what” and the “who” in the abortion debate. The unborn in the womb, he said, are persons not things. They are not disposable. They are human beings who need to be protected and allowed to come to birth.

Participants on the Hill were treated to a speech by the now famous 12-year-old girl from Toronto who had chosen abortion for her school speech, which has been widely broadcast on Youtube. Click on older stories at bottom of page and scroll down for Youtube of her speech. This young lady definitely gets it!

Rain did not deter thousands from peacefully marching through the streets of Ottawa in a show of support for the unborn and their mothers and fathers. Cheerful chants rang out from school groups of young passionate pro-lifers.

Several Knights of Columbus from Halton were in attendance, as well as 77 students and 11 teachers & chaplaincy leaders from our Catholic secondary schools in Halton. I had the opportunity to walk with some of these students and was truly inspired by their maturity and their joy in participating in the largest annual gathering on Parliament Hill.

The pro-abortion protersters along the March for Life route did not dampen the spirits of these youth. Rather, they were emboldened and spurred on to continue their pro-life efforts for a better world, one that respects and welcomes all, including every child in the womb.

With over half the participants in the March for Life consisting of high school and university students, the pro-life movement is in good hands!

Joanne Matters, Executive Director Halton Pro-Life

The annual March for Life on Parliament Hill in the nation’s capital is just days away, as thousands of Canadians prepare to travel to Ottawa for May 14th.

This year’s March for Life marks the 40th anniversary of legal abortion in Canada, resulting in the deaths of over 3 million unborn babies in the last four decades.

That’s a lot of lives lost and a lot of women and men hurting as a result.

Tragically, these babies had heart beats and brain waves that could be detected. They were fully formed and swimming in their mother’s womb when abortion was visited upon them.

Sadly, most of their mothers didn’t know that their little ones were fully developed human beings. They were told “it’s just a blob of tissue.” But, in their hearts, they knew. And, now they suffer.

Even today, most post-abortive women will say they felt pressured and coerced to have their abortions. They felt they had no choice. So much for choice!

Surely, as a caring community, we can do more for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy. They need our support so that they and their babies can make it.

No woman should ever feel that she has to have an abortion. There are so many options and so many supports and so many couples waiting to adopt. But, she needs to be empowered by the support of loved ones to carry on with her pregnancy.

If you have not planned to be in Ottawa on May 14th for the March for Life, see if you can rearrange your schedule to join thousands of Canadians in a peaceful protest against this grave abuse toward children in the womb and their mothers.

Someone’s life may depend on it.

Joanne Matters, Executive Director Halton Pro-Life

It is a favourite pasttime of abortion proponents to look for hypocrisy on the pro-life side. The irony of course is that the defense of abortion is bogged down with self-serving and shifting positions that I routinely challenge. In a recent two-part article in our Halton Pro-Life newsletter, I addressed a raft of matters that prove those whose primary objective is abortion virulently oppose choice.

This in no way suggests that hypocrisy is the exclusive province of one side or the other. Consequently, I am delighted to tackle a couple of popular myths of apparent pro-life hypocrisy based on our position that we are not just anti-abortion, but actively pro-life.

The most common “gotcha” that pro-aborts like to site is that pro-lifers defend capital punishment and the most egregious issue of violence or assassinations carried out against abortion doctors. I will address the first of these assertions in this blog and the second in my next submission.

Before going futher, though, I wish to clarify that being pro-life means that our interests are solely focused on protecting vulnerable human beings. As such, we take no position on animals (whether cuddly, ferocious, endangered or from any other character). We view human life as being of unique value and thus derserving of time and attention, so defence of the flora and fauna is outside our pro-life purview. Each pro-lifer is free to determine their position on these issues according to their own consciences, just as abortion proponents may adopt a more protective position on nature issues. This reality does, however, lead me as a pro-lifer to question their priorities.

Similarly, there is no blanket position on capital punishment for pro-lifers. Doubless, many abortion advocates already see the hypocrisy, but this is only if one wishes to be wilfully blind to the implications of what capital punishment is about. As I indicated earlier, the pro-life defence is for vulnerable (which includes innocent) human beings. This not mere semantics or slight of hand to avoid the hypocrite label. After all, we recognize that all rational people who defend captial punishment do not condone the random taking of life either out of whimsy or vengeance.

The compelling defence of capital punishment is that it is reserved for the vilest offenders that meet the highest standard of evidence to prove their guilt. These criminals have already shown a willingness to take innocent and vulnerable lives. As such, this is not killing of the innocent and arguably makes the case of ensuring more innocent lives are protected, either due to the deterrence factor or because the offenders themselves are no longer capable of perpetuating further violence.

I have changed my personal opinion on this matter several times, but have now settled on an  opposing position toward capital punishment. My rationale comes from a personal Christian view of redemption that leads me to believe (as I do of anyone who has had, or performs, an abortion) that all is forgivable and the death penalty may rob an individual of coming to that knowledge.

The troubling part for me is that liberal judges are so inclined to give chances and the benefit of the doubt to criminals that the risk of the offender returning to society becomes a very real possibility and life imprisonment has become a meaningless term.

Abortion and euthanasia are different matters altogether. In these situations, we know that the unborn and the pressure put upon the elderly, terminally ill, those with substantial mental and physical health problems being judged as having a duty to die make these the vulnerable and innocent we should all be invested in protecting.

If we really want to look hypocrisy squarely in the face, the focus should be on the large numbers of abortion advocates who oppose capital punishment. After all, the pro-life standard is that vulnerable and innocent life deserves protecting. Similarly, the common explanation put forth by those who oppose the death penalty is that, even given the narrow circumstances, the limited number of states where it is allowed, and that despite the extensive checks and balances, there is no guarantee that an innocent person won’t die for a crime they did not commit.

Isn’t that an apt descriptor of those lives being randomly killed without ever exiting the womb? Essentially, then, those who defend abortion but oppose capital punishment are saying that those convicted of capital crimes should not be killed based on the one in a million chance they are innocent, while any number of innocent unborn babies can be killed based on the absurd philosophical notion that innocent, unborn human beings may not be “persons.”

Tom Bartlett