Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform - See it. Believe it. End it.

A Life of Great Value: A Reflection from Florida GAP

jvanmaren — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:27:47 +0000

by Jojo Ruba

I’m often asked what are the hardest pro-choice arguments are to respond to. That’s tough to answer because they give so many bad arguments! Even today, I’ve heard abortion advocates attack pro-lifers’ religion or character or even gender. These ad hominem attacks of course ignore the fundamental issue: what or who is it that abortion kills?

But increasingly, I’ve been hearing the toughest arguments abortion advocates can raise: that human life has no value. Abortion should be legal because even if the pre-born are human beings, they still should be legally killed. These students at least are being consistent and are willing to treat the pre-born child with the same value as the born child. Unfortunately, in their view, both sets of children have equally no value.

This argument isn’t new. Thinkers such as Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer have been saying this for years. But when Singer came out with these arguments, he approached it very carefully, knowing just how much his views made him look like a moral monster, a heartless person who didn’t care if others lived or died. In contrast, more and more students at our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) displays, question why we would advocate for the protection of human life.

For example, at the University of Central Florida (UCF), a political science grad student said that when we say it is wrong to kill people, we are merely stating preferences. Saying it is wrong to kill people is no more a preference than to say it is wrong to eat vanilla ice cream. He even added that the only difference between the Nazis and the Allies in World War II was that one group preferred to save people while the others preferred to kill them. When I pushed him to explain, he did admit that he also preferred not to have people killed. However, he said the only reason why he did anything objectively good like not cheating, was because his professors make him honest.

It doesn’t stop there. At the University of North Florida (UNF) we held an “open mic,” when a pro-lifer speaks through a microphone and asks passersby to comment or ask questions about the display. The conversations are great because many students get to hear a dialogue about abortion. At the open mic at UNC, one student was adamant that there was no morality and even stated in front of a large crowd that he didn’t believe raping a woman was immoral. Several other students repeated the same thing at Florida State University (FSU).

Now there’s a difference between what students say in the heat of argument and what they really practice in real life. And in conversation, many of these students admit that their views aren’t consistent with their behaviour. Some were spouting an intellectual idea that they defended simply to be consistent with their arguments but not with their lifestyle. When one student said he didn’t think rape was wrong, a pro-life volunteer said he would take a picture of this student and plaster it all over campus so that women would know his views on rape. He quickly backtracked.

But many don’t respect human life because they themselves don’t believe their lives have value. Over the twelve years I’ve been doing GAP, I’ve never met so many people who openly share their hurt with us. Through tears a Florida State student told our volunteer that she was pro-choice because she didn’t want anyone to live her life. Her mother had sold her for drugs and had emotionally abused her.

“Sam” was another student we met at Florida Gulf Coast University. He didn’t care that he interrupted a conversation I was having so that he could berate me for being pro-life. He explained for at least an hour how human life had no purpose or meaning, therefore abortion was not wrong. But as he talked, he began to share his testimony: he had lost his dad and best friend to suicide; he had been homeless and only managed to find his way to college by hard work; and his life was so miserable that he didn’t want anyone else to experience anything like it – that’s why he supported abortion. Yet he was so desperate for attention, he found the time to argue with almost every one of our volunteers, despite being a busy student. The second day of our GAP display, he even came back and began to admit to other volunteers he needed professional help.

And that’s why this is the hardest pro-choice argument to respond to: because logic can’t help us explain to a hurting or confused student that they are a person of infinite worth. Neither science nor philosophy can change their minds. Only genuine love could touch them.

At UCF, one of our volunteers met a young man who was sexually abused by his father, who was also his pastor. He was now gay and very angry at the church and anything associated with Christians, including pro-lifers. When he saw the display, he confronted our volunteer and was so angry that he didn’t even want to be near her as he argued against the pro-life view.

But our volunteer was one of the older women in the group and she had a son about the same age as this student. She began to not only explain our views to him but she did it in a way that conveyed compassion. She shared how she wanted to keep connected with him and offered her contact info which helped eased the tension between them. By the end of the conversation, she was able to pray with him and hug him.

This volunteer understood that though we should always have good reasons for the pro-life view, our main goal isn’t to win arguments but it is to win people over. That means being willing to stop just sharing facts and being willing to share our lives. In that way, these students can begin to understand that human life has great value because we treat them as people with great value. It’s a good lesson to remember: that people need to know that when we say we are pro-life, we are also saying that we are pro-their lives.

END the KILLING

cperri — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:08:40 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8wBhPKQliyE/0.jpg

Weight:

Countless minds have been changed. Numerous lives have been saved. But the work has only just started.

We have not yet earned the right to inaction. Now is the time to put an end to the slaughter. Now is the time to join together, and lend our voices to those who had theirs brutally taken from them. Now is the time to ENDtheKILLING.

Julie's Story - GAP Changes Minds

cperri — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:07:39 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEtLrMp6EVc/0.jpg

Weight:

-5

3 years ago the Genocide Awareness Project went to the University of North Florida. Today she shares her story about how GAP influenced and changed her life.

Julie's Story - GAP Changes minds

admin — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:20:39 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEtLrMp6EVc/0.jpg

3 years ago the Genocide Awareness Project went to the University of North Florida. Today she shares her story about how GAP influenced and changed her life. Music by: Epic Soul Factory (March to Glory)

Thomas Clarkson: The Agitator Wilberforce Needed

jvanmaren — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:55:46 +0000

by Stephanie Gray

A prestigious contest. A significant win. And the completion of one’s studies. Such accomplishments would lead many to revel in self-satisfaction. But not so for a selfless 25-year-old whose name would one day rest in the shadows of the world-famous politician William Wilberforce.

In 1785, a university student by the name of Thomas Clarkson made two choices that set the stage for the abolition of slavery in Great Britain:

1. He entered an essay contest.

2. He decided to devote his life to ending the slave trade.

That year, Clarkson entered Cambridge University’s Latin essay contest, answering the question, “Is it lawful to make slaves of others against their will?” For two months, Clarkson devoted extensive time to research and writing—and he was horrified by his discoveries. With solid, brutal evidence and deep conviction, Clarkson submitted his paper.

He won first prize.

Yet, when he completed his studies and was returning to London, he was not thinking about his upcoming career as a clergyman or his recent success. Rather, he was overwhelmed with thoughts of the mistreatment of his fellow human beings. En route to London, Clarkson dismounted his horse, sat on the side of the road, and reflected. He later wrote the following about that moment:

“Here a thought came to my mind, that if the contents of the Essay were true, it was time some person should see these calamities to their end…[I had] a direct revelation from God ordering me to devote my life to abolishing the trade.”

In that moment, Clarkson’s commitment to a life-time of fighting for the rights of enslaved peoples began. While many laud Wilberforce for all he did to make political change (and certainly his sacrifice, good stewardship of talent, and success in a just case are noble), it was Clarkson who laid the foundation for that change.

If Wilberforce is to be credited for leading the shift in public policy, then Clarkson is to be credited for leading the shift in public opinion.

It was Clarkson who, along with the Quakers, approached Wilberforce and asked him to use his role as a politician to help the abolitionists end the slave trade.

It was Clarkson who purchased handcuffs, shackles, and thumbscrews to display to audiences, graphically depicting how humans were treated worse than animals.

It was Clarkson who travelled all over England, Scotland, and Wales (over 35,000 miles, mostly on horseback) to get witnesses to tell Parliament what life was like on the slave ships and plantations.

It was Clarkson who shortened the 648-page book Abstract of the Evidence, which conveyed the shockingly horrific, bloody, gruesome details of slavery, into a more concise version and then circulated it throughout England and Wales.

In Adam Hochschild’s brilliant book, Bury the Chains: Prophets & Rebels in a Fight to Free An Empire’s Slaves, he aptly notes, “Clarkson, the agitator, needed Wilberforce, the insider.” Correspondingly, Wilberforce the insider needed Clarkson the agitator.

Clarkson’s commitment was not an easy one. At one point, in his effort to research and collect evidence to publicize, he went out late each night for three weeks to investigate:

“I seldom got home till two, and into bed till three. My clothes, also, were frequently wet through with the rains. The cruel accounts I was daily in the habit of hearing…often broke my sleep in the night, and occasioned me to awake in an agitated state.”

Yet he did it all because he cared more about others than himself. He knew that with his knowledge came responsibility, and so he knew that a person of conscience could not walk away. He knew the slaves in far away plantations did not have a voice the way he did.

He was prepared to take the personal toll that such self-sacrifice brings. He was also willing to accept the persecution that came from confronting a guilty culture. He was mocked, physically attacked (a gang even tried to throw him off a pier to drown him) and received death threats.

Thomas Clarkson’s courage and dedication did not go unnoticed. In 1807, when the bill for the abolition of the slave trade was passed, poet William Wordsworth wrote this sonnet to Clarkson:

Clarkson! It was an obstinate Hill to climb:

How toilsome, nay, how dire it was, by Thee

Is known,--by none, perhaps, so feelingly;

But Thou, who starting in thy fervent prime,

Didst first lead forth this pilgrimage sublime,

Hast heard the constant Voice its charge repeat,

Which, out of thy young heart’s oracular seat,

First roused thee.—O true yoke-fellow of Time

With unabating effort, see, the palm

Is won, and by all Nations shall be worn!

The bloody Writing is for ever torn,

And Thou henceforth shalt have a good Man’s calm,

A great Man’s happiness; they zeal shall find

Repose at length, firm Friend of human kind!

Clarkson undoubtedly was a friend of human kind. May we beINSPIRED by him and ensure that, in the midst of present-day injustices, our actions prove that we are friends of all of human kind too.

Abortion - An International Response

admin — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:15:51 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dDvZMnJ4haY/0.jpg

What happens the when 21 people from across globe come together to do pro-life activism? Changed hearts and minds! Music By: Epic Soul Factory (The Lost World)

Abortion - An International Response

cperri — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:05:34 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dDvZMnJ4haY/0.jpg

Weight:

What happens the when 21 people from across globe come together to do pro-life activism? Changed hearts and minds!

Music By: Epic Soul Factory (The Lost World)

beINSPIRED: A Single Mother's Story

admin — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:00:42 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vmpeIxe_WLw/0.jpg

Nadege shares her story and hardships of being a single mother at the age of 16. She is an inspiration!

ETK Podcast 4 - International Florida GAP Tour 2012

jshaw — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:39:24 +0000

This week, Stephanie speaks to us all the way from sunny Florida! She tells the stories coming from Florida as we are half way through our annual Florida GAP tour. It has been a great pleasure to have people from Canada, the United States, Costa Rica, and even England. Listen in as she recounts the exciting pro-life activism happening in Florida.

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_4_-_international_florida_gap_tour.mp3	34.57 MB

Oskar Schindler: The Man Who Sacrificed Everything

jvanmaren — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:39:19 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

There are few heroes today that are as well known as Oskar Schindler, the German industrialist who used his wealth and his factories to save twelve hundred Jews during the Second World War. Schindler has been celebrated in fiction, non-fiction and film, as well as having received the honour of planting a tree in Yad Vashem’s Garden of the Righteous in Israel.

Oskar Schindler is inspiring not because he made millions, not because he was a successful businessman, and not because he attained a position of high social standing. Oskar Schindler is inspiring precisely because he was willing to give up all of those things to save his fellow human beings in their hour of need. Indeed, he spent almost every dollar he had to save as many Jews as he could, bribing Nazi officers to look the other way while he declared the old, the sick, and the handicapped to be “essential workers” in his factories.

Just over a year ago, I had the privilege of interviewing the youngest surviving Jew from Schindler’s list while working free-lance for a Vancouver publication. Leon Leyson was only thirteen years old when he was transferred from the notorious Plaszow concentrarion camp to Oskar Schindler’s factory with his mother, father, and two siblings, although two of his older brothers perished. Leon Leyson described what it was like to know someone who truly knew what it meant to be a hero.

JVM: In short, how would you describe your experience?

LL: In my family, five people, five of us in the immediate family survived the war, and no one else did. Everyone else was murdered, and we survived the war because the five of us were on Schindler’s list.

JVM: What is your most vivid memory of Oskar Schindler?

LL: Oh, he was a different kind of human being. You have to remember that I experienced the other kind for the first two and a half years of the war and so when I met Oskar Schindler it was just like meeting a different kind of human being. Before that, I met these people who simply accepted the Nazi ideology and treated us as non-human, and I spent two and a half years in that situation and then I met Oskar Schindler, who seemed like a different person altogether. You could tell by the way he spoke to us, you could tell by the way he looked at us and how he treated us. And as everyone knows by now, he saved twelve hundred people during the war. It was a great accomplishment, and he did that at great risk to his own life and fortune. You know, nowadays it’s just about being a great CEO—this was a whole different thing, to treat us like human beings and do what he could to supply a little extra food and things like that. He was a—you know—you can’t describe it any other way than that he was a genuine hero.

JVM: You met him many times?

LL: Oh, many times, many times. Once I started working there, I was transferred to his company, I met him almost nightly. He had a habit of entertaining a lot in his office and after the guests left he would come down to the factory floor and visit, just slowly walk through and stop and talk to people and just make human contact.

JVM: What did you think of the actual film?

LL: For the most part it was very accurate, you know, the events that occurred were accurate except that’s it’s still a movie, it’s not real life. But as far as the events are concerned, they were depicted accurately. The ghetto, the camp...you can’t show all the horrible atrocities that were committed on a daily basis; people being murdered...you know, you can’t show that in a movie. You can only show samples.

JVM: You feel that the story of Oskar Schindler is still very relevant to today?

LL: Oh, absolutely, absolutely, on so many different levels. I speak to middle-school students and high school students and to do the right thing does not need to constitute a Schindler. You can do the right thing by inviting a new student to come and sit at your table with the rest of your friends, or just one of those little things. It doesn’t take much. It’s a matter of being kind. When you talk to high school students, their social behaviour is all in the school, it depends on how they act, and it’s important that they know that it makes a difference, how you act and what you do.

JVM: What spurred you to speak out after so many years?

LL: Actually, what happened is the movie came out. When the movie Schindler’s List came out, there was a lot of interest generated in those events. I was persuaded to tell my experiences because I was on Schindler’s list, and little by little I continued speaking. Basically it was time. It had been forty years since I came to this country and I hadn’t told my experiences to anyone except my immediate family and even then I wouldn’t tell everything. So it was getting close to time to do it. If we’re going to honour the request of those people who died that if we survived to tell the world, then it was time for me to start.

JVM: When you hear the words “Never Again” and look around the world, what do you think?

LL: That’s why we need to talk all the more, to show what could happen, what occurred! People should have a lesson from this, how to behave, how to act towards each other. Apparently the lesson has not been learned yet. So we’ll just keep trying.

Indeed we will. When we look back at inspiring figures in history, we should remember that the actions of those heroes can become real again. We, too, can sacrifice like Oskar Schindler. We, too, can put justice and human life above wealth and personal advancement.

For as Lewis Carroll once said so eloquently, “One of the deep secrets of life is that all that is really worth doing is what we do for others.”

Avoiding Unintentional Exclusion: A Reflection From Florida GAP

jvanmaren — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:00:41 +0000

by Alanna Gomez

As we have begun our two week mission trip of pro-life outreach on American university campuses, I have been reflecting on a TED Talk I heard recently. In the talk, Dave Meslin claims that apathy as we think of it doesn’t exist in our culture. People often complain that society doesn’t get involved with issues, ranging from city planning and politics to more serious issues. Instead of blaming apathy, Meslin blames intentional exclusion. He uses the example of a City of Toronto re-zoning application and compared it to how companies like Nike advertise their products. The city puts an ad in the paper, full of text in small font, and obscures the purpose of the application so that you must thoroughly analyze the ad just to understand what is going on.

The information on how to actually get involved is hidden in the final paragraph, if anyone gets that far, because they don’t really want people to be involved. In contrast, Nike wants people to buy their product so they make an eye-catching ad, with all the information on where to find their product, and why you want to buy it, immediately evident.

Although not intentional, the pro-life movement is sometimes guilty of subconscious exclusion. Instead of asking ourselves if our projects and outreach compel the culture to engage in the abortion debate, pro-lifers sometimes complain that the media is ignoring our message and that the culture simply isn’t willing to dialogue about the issue or actively form opinions based on the evidence. In fact, abortion advocates often insist that the debate is over- no one wants or needs to discuss abortion. However, we have found that this is not the case, especially on a university campus like Florida Gulf Coast University, when we hold the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).

For example, whenever we hold GAP on university campuses, Planned Parenthood representatives usually react by putting on their pink t-shirts and setting up a table with free candy and condoms. They have a supply of signs with various slogans like “Women’s Health Matters” and “Pro-Woman, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice”. This is a positive and attractive message, and always gathers a crowd of supporters. In contrast, we put up graphic, ugly, bill-board sized pictures of babies that have been killed, along with victims of other terrible injustices. One might think that this would turn people away, and be a barrier to dialogue but we have found just the opposite. These terrible images are the catalyst that many students need in order to seriously engage in the abortion debate.

I observed throughout an afternoon how the pink clad Planned Parenthood crowd started off standing in a group, holding their signs and opposing the pictures and then transitioned to small groups, standing or sitting by our display, signs set aside, dialoguing with our pro-life student volunteers. We had many students spend several hours talking with our volunteers, some going to class and then returning with new thoughts or a changed mind. While pro-abortion organizations might want us to believe that people have their minds made up, this sort of project which really invites people to engage proves otherwise.

During our open microphone session, where we take questions from the crowd and answer them for everyone to hear, a student asked me why we don’t just work on sex education to reduce the number of abortions. What I tried to express to him was that it isn’t enough for us to merely reduce the number of abortions- we want to end abortion. One way to do that permanently is to reach out to the culture, to university students, and help them come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong before they find themselves in a crisis pregnancy situation. They need the opportunity now to decide that killing their child is not a viable option.

We are looking forward to a week and a half more of our outreach on Florida university campuses and continuing to change minds and reach the hearts of students while compelling them to engage in this debate and will be sharing those testimonies with you!

Why I Do "Choice" Chain: A Post-Abortive Woman's Testimony

jvanmaren — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:21:12 +0000

by Jeannie Marlena of Vancouver Against Abortion

What compels me to do "Choice" Chain?

The need to protect women who have had abortions, children who may be future victims of abortion, and men who are ignorant of abortion, in partnership with doing the will of God, compels me to take action through "Choice" Chain. My own experience may have ended quite differently had I not actively acknowledged that I needed help. I believe "Choice" Chain breaks through the lies of society and shows people the consequences of making that “choice,” thereby forcing them to face the truth and acknowledge that help is needed to overcome the devastating effects of abortion. Through the grace of God, I have been forgiven, He has led me back to Him and has given me the opportunity to share my experience and witness to the effects of abortion.

I’ve made bad decisions in my life, but none that I regret more than choosing abortion. I made my choice, because like many other women, I believed and was told that abortion was the “easy way out.” My life circumstances seemed overwhelming for me and I didn’t feel as if I was either worthy or ready to bring a life into this world. What I didn’t know was how ending my child’s life would negatively affect me in every possible way.

I hit the lowest point in my life two years ago after my abortion. I have never experienced such internal chaos as I did at that time. I was having nightmares, was deeply depressed and was having debilitating panic attacks. I never have felt more exposed, vulnerable and helpless. These words do not adequately describe the feeling.

I know now that if I had continued on the road I was heading down, I was in for an early death. I sought medical help, psychological help, and even saw a naturopath to try to fix what was going on inside me. No one could help or offer any explanation as to why this was happening to me. I myself was in such denial as to whether my choice was wrong that I didn’t want to believe that my abortion had caused me these problems.

After frantically searching for help in every other direction, I realized that God was calling me back to Him. I went to confession and began my re-conversion to the faith I had long forgotten. My Confessor advised me to get help through Rachel’s Vineyard and I started the long journey of healing. I attended one-on-one counselling and completed the program Forgiven and Set Free, offered through Post-Abortion Community Services in Vancouver. The year I spent facing my pain was full of immense fear and regret but ultimately ended in forgiveness and a deeper relationship with my Maker. After consecrating my life to Mary during my healing process and continually working on my soul, I began to pray fervently for God to use me and my experience to help put an end to abortion, ensuring that what happened to me would never happen to anyone else.

He answered my prayer quickly! Directly after I finished my program I attended the Pro-Life Apologetics training held by Ruth from CCBR. The session motivated me to personally thank Ruth for the important work she is doing. During our conversation, she mentioned that "Choice" Chain would be coming to Vancouver on a regular basis and they needed volunteers to help organize. God has called me to action!!

"Choice" Chain has offered me the opportunity to reach people with my regretful testimony. I sincerely believe that people will acknowledge that abortion is an atrocity, not only to the children it destroys, but also to women emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and physically. Society has lied to women for decades about the truths surrounding abortion. I know that using my testimony through "Choice" Chain, will persuade others to choose life for their children and themselves, and if they have had an abortion to confront their fear and seek healing.

Erin Gruwell: The Teacher Who Inspired Change

jvanmaren — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:34:47 +0000

by Stephanie Gray

There is a quote I’ve placed above my desk by William Arthur Ward which captures the spirit of this week’s beINSPIRED hero, Erin Gruwell: “The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.”

In the early 90s, in the wake of the Rodney King riots, Erin Gruwell was a student teacher at a Long Beach high school where racial tensions ran high. The class she was assigned encompassed troubled kids, the ones who typically fail out, the ones considered “unteachables.”

Many of her students were in gangs, from broken homes, and in and out of juvenile detention. After her first day where she learned metal detectors were a common occurrence, rude remarks from students prevailed, and a warning about a student’s potential to shoot a teacher was declared, Erin left deflated and disheartened.

She reflected, “I felt like a failure. It was obvious that I didn’t know what I was doing. I had no idea how to engage these apathetic teenagers who hated reading, hated writing, and apparently hated me.”

So how is it possible, that in a few short years, all of Erin’s 150 students would graduate from high school? How is it possible that these students who hated school would not only start reading their assignments, but enjoy them? How is it possible that students who hated writing would share their stories in the now-published book The Freedom Writers Diaries? How is it possible that students from rival gangs who hated each other would break the racial divide and form a bond of friendship?

It is possible because Erin demonstrated character which distinguishes those who inspire from those who do not. Erin refused to give up on her students. In the face of them not caring about school, she sought to help them care, instead of abandoning them to their apathy. She worked sacrificially and tirelessly to be a support and encouragement to these young people. She sought creative ways to inspire them to want to learn, analogizing their life experiences with that of other people, like Anne Frank.

Erin wrote, “After hearing, ‘Ms. G, this doesn’t have anything to do with my life,’ more than once, I made it my mission to prove my students wrong by finding ways to make my lessons speak to their experiences and tap into their talents.”

Indeed, she demonstrated masterful skill in bringing stories to life and helping students learn from history. She introduced her students to living witnesses of great hardship—Holocaust survivors and Zlata Filipovich who authored A Child’s Life in Sarajevo—showing them that one’s present circumstances don’t have to determine their future.

She showed them that no matter how troubling one’s situation, it is possible to rise above the ashes—if we choose. Erin Gruwell inspired her students to choose a different way from gang violence and mediocrity—she inspired them to choose to aspire to greatness.

Erin faced many challenges, from resistant students to resistant colleagues and school administrators. It was no easy task to transform the lives of these students, and in the times of hardship it would have been easy for Erin to give up, to quit and find an easier school, an easier job.

But Erin knew that when it comes to making choices in life, it’s not always about what’s easy, but rather, what’s right.

In her memoir, Teach With Your Heart, Gruwell wrote,

“While I was in college, a young Chinese student stood in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. Not only did he stop the advancement of the tanks, but he captured my imagination as well. I was amazed that one person could stop the forces of evil dead in its tracks. This young man’s convictions made me question myself. What did I believe in? Did I have convictions of my own?”

Erin’s life demonstrates that she did have convictions of her own—convictions to inspire the next generation to excel and make a positive difference.

Erin’s example compels us to ask, What are our convictions? And what are we doing about them?

Editor’s Note: Consider watching the movie based on Erin Gruwell’s story, with actress Hilary Swank, called Freedom Writers.

ETK Podcast 3 - Arrest, Censorship, and the Holocaust

jshaw — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:27:32 +0000

In this third edition of the ETK podcast, Stephanie and Jonathon discuss the recent arrest of one of our staff members, Francisco Gomez. In light of the arrest, they discuss censorship and the recent silencing of the pro-life student group at the University of Victoria. Steph and Jonathon end the podcast by discussing the often debated Holocaust comparison and look at the implications and effectiveness of that comparison.

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_3_-_arrest_censorship_and_the_holocaust.mp3	36.06 MB

Canada's Soft Fascism

jvanmaren — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:44:44 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

Yesterday, two Canadian news stories were released that revealed the continuance of an alarming trend. The first detailed how my colleague Francisco Gomez was arrested by the Calgary Police after they decided that the abortion imagery he and his fellow pro-lifers were displaying was “too obscene.” This is regardless of the fact that abortion is the most common medical procedure in Canada and has been disingenuously labelled “therapeutic.”

The second story was of much the same nature: the University of Victoria Student Society (UVSS) once again decided to deny pro-lifers at their university any free speech rights for displaying the same images, even demanding that they apologize to those they had offended.

The Canadian media, to their credit, immediately recognized that unpopular views, especially those revolving around matters of public debate, should be protected and denounced the actions of the Calgary Police and the UVSS.

Just kidding.

I didn’t think that I possessed the capacity to get depressed by media and public reactions to censorship anymore, but yesterday changed things. Censorship has been disgustingly common against pro-lifers as of late, and has only increased recently: a motion was put forward to ban Carleton pro-lifers from their own campus. A pro-life activist called the police after being assaulted, and was rewarded with a fine for exercising his free speech rights. Simon Fraser University demanded that a pro-life display be shielded from the public so that people would not be “inadvertently” exposed to a point of view they did not like.

Yaaawn.

I fully realize that censorship is becoming so common, that it is considered almost monotonous by Canadians. Really? Those pesky pro-lifers with their graphic images and foolish point of view are being forced to go away again? Oh well. They had it coming. Please hand me my beer and the television remote, I think a really important sports game is on. If that goes badly, I may get so worked up I’ll loot a store.

Really? Can you really muster no outrage when fellow Canadians are told that their point of view is not worthy of public expression? You can listen apathetically when all sorts of insidious excuses are given for the censorship, in complete contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? You honestly believe that your personal feelings on a matter are more important than the rights of someone else to express their view?

The worst part of the situation is that so many pro-lifers are terrified of public confrontation that they have begun to echo some of the same rhetoric: Perhaps we should use different tactics. Maybe we had it coming. If we just stopped getting people riled up, they would start liking us and abortion would end.

Nonsense. All of it. Why don’t we just get a list of pro-life tactics they approve of from the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and work inside those parameters? Why don’t we just call a truce with those who advocate for the slaughtering of little children and make sure we get along? After all, our ideological differences can be overcome with a good fondue dinner and an enforced group hug. Oh, and don’t inadvertently look at the pile of pre-born corpses in the corner of their office on your way out. It’s a bit obscene.

George Orwell once wrote that “If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if the laws exist to protect them.”

Well, here we are. Soft fascism may go down better than a jackboot, and taste a bit like Kool-Aid, but it’s still deadly. And when mixed with what Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism,” we’ve pretty much gone for a nap on the moral high ground and informed the opposition that we’re not really that interested in sacrifice and activism.

After all, American Idol will be on soon. I don’t want to miss that.

Calgary Police Bully, Arrest, and Seize Property

cperri — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:09:58 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0kKTTmPenqQ/0.jpg

Weight:

For Immediate Release: POLICE ARREST LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN & ILLEGALLY CONFISCATE ULTRASOUND IMAGERY

jheikoop — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:33:06 +0000

UPDATE: On February 9, 2012, Calgary Police apologized to Francisco Gomez for arresting him, detaining him in a squad car, ticketing him for stunting, and seizing his group's signs. They said this should never have happened. All the signs were returned, and the ticket has been dropped. CCBR awaits further information from police about how officers are trained when it comes to free expression rights, and how such training might be improved in future. Francisco and CCBR wish to express their gratitude for the support of various pro-lifers throughout the incident.

For Immediate Release:

POLICE ARREST LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN & ILLEGALLY CONFISCATE ULTRASOUND IMAGERY

February 7, 2012. Calgary, AB. Newly released video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kKTTmPenqQ) shows Calgary police arresting a local anti-abortion advocate who was simply protesting on a public sidewalk, somethinghe had done many times before without incident.

Francisco Gomez of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca) was leading a group of young adults in a protest near Chinook Mall this past Saturday, February 4, when policeapproached them and threatened Gomez with arrest if they didn’t stop the protest. Gomez explained that they were on these same streets many times before and that they had a constitutional right to be there so he refused to move. The officer then took him away and detained him in a squad car, giving him a ticket for over $400. The police also confiscated the group's dozen signs which depict first-trimester abortions and first-trimester 3D ultrasound imagery.

"We’ve been on the streets of Calgary for over two years now and have dealt with all kinds of police, many of whom understand our constitutional rights,” says Gomez. "Unfortunately, some of them need to be educated that free speech rights cover unpopular speech. If I am only allowed to share truths that make everyone happy, there would be no need for free speech.”

CCBR's executive director Stephanie Gray says her group has developed this project as a way to educate people about abortion. She points out how so many people tell their group how little they think about the issue until they see abortion imagery.

“Canadians need to see these images in order to understand what abortion is. But here’s why the police’s actions are so incomprehensible: If abortion is so offensive to see that you arrest people who are holding images of it, then why isn’t it offensive enough to arrest people for actually committing abortions?" She continued,"If holding images of babies killed by abortion is illegal, then why isn’t killing those babies illegal?

Ironically, Gomez adds that the police actually seized all of CCBR’s ultrasound imagery as well the graphic ones. Those images simply show the developing pre-born in different stages of development. “The police officer claimed that our images shouldn’t be on the streets because they were something that he didn’t want his children to see. But by seizing all our images, it seems they didn’t care what our message was,” he said. CCBR's signs continue to be held by Calgary police.

The officer initially told Gomez his signs had to go because they were resulting in complaints and were obscene. Being charged with obscenity is a criminal matter. But instead he gave Gomez a $402 ticket under the Traffic Safety Act for stunting (stating no person shall “perform or engage in any stunt or other activity that is likely to distract, startle, or interfere with users of the highway”).

But Canadian courts have already ruled on a similar case. In R.v. Whatcott, Judge Kraus of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's bench ruled that a pro-life advocate was not stunting when he was publicly displaying abortion signs. The judge wrote, "The police action was arbitrary, discriminatory and not clearly authorized by law such as can be demonstrated in a free and democratic society, as required by s. 1 of the Charter...The appellant’s fundamental freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter was infringed" (October 18, 2004, SKQB 413).

"It's appalling that police think they can bully people whose message they don't agree with," said Gomez. "The police have failed in their duty to protect the vulnerable by not stopping abortion. They are adding insult to injury by arresting the people trying to protect the vulnerable children that the police aren't protecting."

CCBR's demonstrations have been occurring in Calgary since 2010. The organization goes out multiple times each week and informs Calgary police of its planned activities, times, and locations.

"We have gone above the call of duty to be helpful to police by informing them of our whereabouts. We know we have every right to do what we're doing and we will not tolerate bullying and censorship," stated Gray, who says this recent incident is one of several in which her group says they've been treated unfairly by police.

“We are tired of police violating our constitutional rights and we demand they return our signs immediately; further, we demand the officers involved in the unlawful seizure and arrest to be reprimanded for abusing their authority."

For more information contact CCBR's executive director Stephanie Gray at

403-200-0777

###

Sophie Scholl: The Girl Who Would Not Be Silent

jvanmaren — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:33:00 +0000

Editor’s Note: This article is the first in a series that will explore CCBR’s beINSPIRED concept. We at CCBR believe that courageous human beings throughout history provide inspiration to everyone on both sides of the debate, and that we can draw much wisdom and strength from their actions. By looking at the past, we can learn how to deal with the future. Indeed, we can change it.

by Jonathon Van Maren

On February 22, 1943, a 21-year-old girl named Sophie Scholl was beheaded in Munich, Germany, after being condemned to death by the infamous Nazi “People’s Court.” Her crime? She would not stay silent while her country destroyed human lives and assaulted human dignity.

Sophie, her brother Hans, and their fellow activists belonged to an organization they had begun called The White Rose, a resistance group dedicated to non-violent activism against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. They distributed leaflets, spray painted anti-Nazi slogans on walls, and met together to discuss philosophy, theology, and literature. Students at the University of Munich soon took notice, and as more leaflets—six in all—were distributed, other White Rose groups began to form. People as far away as Austria began to read their writing, and the Gestapo began a frantic manhunt to quell the dissension.

Among the many reasons for speaking out, several members of the White Rose had witnessed the injustices being perpetrated against the Jews on the Eastern Front. In their first leaflet, they asked the German public a solemn question:

“Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day?”

The second leaflet continued the denunciations, stating that “...we want to cite the fact that since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way. Here we see the most frightful crime against human dignity, a crime that is unparalleled in the whole of history. For Jews, too, are human beings—no matter what position we take with respect to the Jewish question—and a crime of this dimension has been perpetrated against human beings.”

They then asked another question that pierces us from across the years, and should once again give our society reason for pause: “Why do the German people behave so apathetically in the face of these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? Hardly anyone thinks about that. It is accepted as fact and put out of mind...Is this a sign that the Germans are brutalized in their simplest human feelings, that no chord within them cried out at the sight of such deeds, that they have sunk into a fatal consciencelessness from which they will never, never awake?”

Indeed. It is a shame that such questions must still be asked today in our society, as we tolerate the mass slaughter of our pre-born brothers and sisters and the Culture of Death looks greedily at the disabled and elderly. And who among us is still appalled? How many of us have caved to the monotony of the surgical nature and medical characterization of the slaughter, and slowly slipped into “consciencelessness”? As Sophie herself said just before she faced the guillotine, “How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause?”

Today, however, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose are remembered and venerated for their valiant opposition to the crimes of Nazi Germany. They are remembered as a heroic few who did not share in the shame of their generation. Their voices, although silenced by those who had no regard for human life, still echo across the generations with their message of freedom and human rights.

We should pay these voices heed, and stand up to fight injustices in our own society and in our own culture. Sophie and her comrades were willing to pay the price of death for what they believed. What are we willing to give up? What are we willing to sacrifice?

And perhaps most importantly, how will history judge us?

SFLA 2012 Jan 22 Stephanie Gray

admin — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:09:18 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AcQmu-tx880/0.jpg

Do some pro-lifers have Stockholm Syndrome?

jvanmaren — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:13:28 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

It is a well-known fact that if you control the language of a debate, you will inevitably control the debate itself, as opponents are forced to either use your own terminology to win an argument, or provide more accurate definitions that the culture must then accept. In my opinion, the most brilliant and effective propaganda move in recent history is the abortion lobby’s qualification of themselves as “pro-choice,” a handy catchphrase that effectively focuses the debate on the attractive sounding word “choice” as opposed to the more gruesome reality of what that choice entails. However, a question must be asked: How are pro-lifers responding to this? Are pro-lifers suffering from Stockholm Syndrome in a culture that is generally accepting of abortion? Are we contradicting our own position by using the terminology that allowed abortion advocates to win the war of rhetoric in the first place?

In order to make abortion seem like the nonchalant and “therapeutic” procedure that many people consider it to be today, abortion advocates had to first change the language in order to dehumanize the pre-born child. For example, terms like “pre-born child” are out. So is so-called misleading language like “baby.” Scientific terms such as embryo, zygote and fetus can still be used, but the preferred terminology is “fetal tissue” or “the products of conception.” Of course, “fetal tissue” is dehumanizing because it does not recognize the inherent humanity and life of the fetus—we don’t refer to people as “human tissue” but as “human beings.” Other misleading epithets such as “clump of cells” are also common.

Because the language surrounding the pre-born child has been changed to the extent that the medical profession has accepted abortion (with notable exceptions) to a large extent, these dehumanizing terms have received the disingenuous characterization of “medically correct.” Phrases such as “the products of conception,” which could technically be used to accurately describe you and me, are now often considered even by a number of pro-lifers to be terms which we must use in order to appear correct.

Let me provide a comparison. When the Nazi party decided to exterminate the Jewish people, they knew that they could not inform the German people that they planned to kill enormous numbers of their fellow human beings. Instead, they began an arduous process of assigning “scholars” to invent junk racial theory and elaborate “scientific studies” to prove that the Jewish people were actually “sub-human”—this process is brilliantly described in Heather Pringle’s recent book The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust.

Over a number of years of propaganda and re-education, the Nazi theories of “inferior races” and Jews and others being “sub-human” and “vermin” began to become not merely the ideological position of the Nazis, but accepted fact. Indeed, when a Nazi doctor was asked at the Nuremburg Trials how he could reconcile his actions with the Hippocratic Oath, he replied: “Of course I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.”

Jews were labelled “sub-human” and “vermin.” Pre-born children are labelled “the products of conception” or “fetal tissue”—and sometimes even “parasites” or “tumours.” However, when resistance workers tried to save Jews from death, did they describe the injustice they fought as “exterminating vermin from their homes” or “the Holocaust involves extinguishing the lives of sub-humans”? Of course not! Instead of conceding to those who attempted to dehumanize their fellow human beings, they ignored the faulty science and faulty ethics behind the Nazi characterizations and instead chose to recognize the Jews for what they were: Fellow human beings of intrinsic worth.

We must do the same. We cannot save pre-born children by using the very dehumanizing rhetoric that allowed this modern-day holocaust to happen in the first place. It is not “misleading” to use terms such as “pre-born child”—it is medically correct. It is misleading to refer to a human being of intrinsic worth as “fetal tissue” or “the products of conception.” Lives are at stake—lives which, if we hold to a philosophically consistent and moral view of human rights, are as valuable as any other human lives, older or younger. We cannot win the war against abortion if we accept the dehumanizing terminology of those who consider pre-born children to be worthless.

So instead, let us affirm their worth, and EndtheKilling.

Morgentaler's Legacy: Dead Baby Girls

jvanmaren — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:27:30 +0000

by Stephanie Gray

Tiny baby girls can be killed in Canada today (with our tax dollars), thanks to a decision whose anniversary was this past Saturday, January 28.

In a case that was supposedly about advancing women's rights--the 1988 Supreme Court decision which struck down Canada's abortion law--the ironic effect is that pre-born women lost all protection. For any reason or no reason, early in pregnancy or late, because she's a she or because he's unwanted, the dismemberment, decapitation and disembowelment of pre-born children is a regular occurence in our country.

This sobering reality should prompt people of conscience to stand up, speak out, and be a witness for those too vulnerable to speak for themselves. This past weekend, the survivor generation--young people who survived their time in the womb when many of their peers did not--bore witness to the ugly reality of "choice" in Toronto, Lethbridge and the Fraser Valley. Some oppose the display of bloody images, but shouldn't we be more horrified that children are being killed than we are horrified of being informed of that reality? After all, do we blame the news when they report on injustices from around the globe?

When the Morgentaler decision came down in 1988, Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson said, "The right to liberty contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life."

How tragic that of all people it was a woman whose words would do to the pre-born what men once did to women. Just as a man cannot justify denying personhood status to, or abusing, women on grounds that he has the right to "liberty," neither should a woman justify denying personhood status to, or killing, pre-born children on the grounds that she has the right to "liberty." Since when does liberty permit us to deprive innocent human beings of their right to life? Moreover, the right to life is needed in order to exercise one's right to liberty.

So in the name of a perverse notion of freedom, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, two-by-two, mother and child are walking into abortion clinics today. Each time, only one will come out alive. Some Canadians are celebrating this slaughter. We must not let the silent screams go unheard.

For those who know we need to EndtheKilling, the question we must ask ourselves is this: Are we as determined to save babies as abortion advocates are to kill them?

A Christian Response

jvanmaren — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:31:48 +0000

by Jojo Ruba

A few months ago, I wrote a post on my Facebook commenting on Martin Luther King Jr’s courage. In response, a friend pointed out that MLK was deeply flawed. Stories of his infidelity and plagiarism have come out in recent years. He also spoke at a Planned Parenthood dinner, something those of us fighting for the rights of the pre-born find deeply problematic. But Pastor King’s (King was a Baptist pastor) flaws don’t change the fact that he spoke the truth when he fought and gave his life for the legal rights of African-Americans.

I couldn’t help but think of King, as I read a blog post by another Baptist pastor critical of pro-lifers. Pastor Mike Engbers of Edmonton explains why he feels the abortion debate should not be reopened because of pro-lifers’ bad character. He explains how pro-lifers’ focus on laws protecting the pre-born, distract from the compassion Christians should show to hurting people. But Pastor Mike’s self-admitted “generalizations” underscore the kind of misunderstanding many Christians have about the abortion debate.

Why we have laws

The first problem in Pastor Mike’s analysis of the pro-life movement is his flawed understanding of the law and morality. Despite the prime minister insisting on not even debating abortion, Pastor Mike blames the re-opening of the debate to the election of a Conservative majority government. He adds this is problematic because “people seem to feel that morality hinges on the legality of the issue at hand.” Why? Because he says, “Allowing government legislation to be the tool by which we communicate our ethics is disconcerting to me.”

I agree that the law can’t be our main focus now. That’s why our organization’s primary goal is educational not political. We understand that the law can only be changed if we first change the hearts and minds of Canadians.

But Pastor Mike’s argument begs the question: what then should government legislation communicate? Can we create laws that are value-neutral? Of course not. All laws force someone’s morality on someone else. For example, when the Alberta government passed a law on distracted driving, it did so because it took a stand that using a cell phone while driving is dangerous to human lives and is therefore wrong. Moreover, that’s a moral view that the government clearly has a right to impose on those who disagree. Pastor Mike himself attacks pro-lifers for not speaking out against modern slavery. But much of that work involves creating laws banning slavery, laws that would be “government legislation” used as a “tool by which we communicate our ethics.”

In comparison to this muddled thinking, Pastor King said “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me; religion and education will have to do that. But if it keeps him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important also.” He understood that though the law can’t make people become Christians, it can ensure people aren’t unjustly killed – a Christian virtue.

A moral problem

Pastor Mike’s also doesn’t identify the right problem in the abortion debate. He says pro-lifers should provide more services to pregnant women and compassion to those who are born. But in fact, if Pastor Mike looks at the number of services available to women with unwanted pregnancies, as we have he would know that there are already dozens of pro-life centres across the country. Despite their good work though, too few women are going to these centres. In 2007, the network of pregnancy centres, CAPPS, helped 6374 women of which, 1074 were “abortion-minded” or “abortion-vulnerable.” In the same year, over 100 000 Canadians chose abortion – most of whom had never visited these centres. The greatest need then is not to establish more centres but to ensure that the ones created are well used.

But why aren’t these centres used? Most Canadians, Christian or not, know that regardless of the situation they face, that they should never harm their born children. The fact that they would kill their pre-born children means that they don’t actually value them the same way as the born. In other words, abortion happens because of a knowledge/moral problem, not a service one. Pastor Mike’s article arguments suffer the same problem.

Who does abortion kill?

For example, he distinguishes between the law not “mandating” abortion vs making it simply legal for people to choose. Of course he would never make the same distinction about slavery – he knows it is unjust as long as it happens, regardless of whether or not people are “mandated” to own a slave.

Moreover, if Pastor Mike truly believed that abortion kills pre-born humans who are just as valuable as born people, he would not advocate for silencing the abortion debate until pro-lifers speak out on other issues. He would understand the urgency. Instead, he writes that pro-lifers have no credibility to speak about the lives of pre-born people because they don’t speak out against human trafficking, the rights of women and their children in other countries, modern slavery and even miscarriages. But we don’t question the credibility of The Canadian Cancer Society or Mothers Against Drunk Driving just because they don’t fight modern slavery or childhood obesity. We recognize their unique role and wouldn’t question their commitment to human life just because of their specific responsibilities. Even Pastor Mike’s own church supports particular projects. In the same way that we don’t dismiss the truth that Pastor King spoke just because he did wrong, we shouldn’t dismiss the truth that pro-lifers speak even if we don’t like their attitude.

I don’t say any of this as Pastor Mike’s enemy. I say this as someone who deeply loves his church and the Kingdom we are supposed to represent. I just pray that we extend the same grace to the little children who are killed in our own neighbourhoods, daily, as he does to those who are born. As Martin Luther King Jr. said when he talked about the white churches who ignored the plight of African-Americans:

"In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love…Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists."

Vancouver Against Abortion: Fighting for the Rights of the Pre-born.

jvanmaren — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:35:04 +0000

by Ania Kasprzak

As we were getting ready for “Choice” Chain on a very cold January afternoon, for a split-second I hesitated. We were setting up on the corner of Robson and Granville (one of the busiest and most crowded intersections in all of Vancouver), and my over-active imagination immediately started conjuring up all the possible things that could go wrong with hosting such a controversial demonstration.

“Oh my gosh what is that?!”

I turned to my right, and saw a man in his late twenties clutching a pamphlet and darting his eyes from poster to poster.

“What are these pictures of?”

He appeared genuinely confused about what the graphic images were depicting. I approached him and gently explained that we were showing exactly what abortion does to the pre-born child at different stages of development. I pointed out how the majority of abortions happen during the first trimester and this is why we are focusing on bringing this shocking and graphic truth to the public.

The young man was at a loss for words. He kept shaking his head and repeating the same sentence over and over:

“Oh my gosh, how can this be happening? Is this really what it looks like? That’s terrible! I had no idea!”

Often I am asked by my pro-choice and pro-life friends why we show graphic images. “What’s the point? What’s the reason?” they ask.

He is the reason. Actually, every single person walking by on that frigid January day is the reason why we do what we do. Why we bring the truth to the streets even though it is hated, rejected and sometimes, violently opposed.

We do it so that they can be shown the humanity of the pre-born. We do it so that they can finally see that a child in utero is not just a blob of tissue, and because we strongly believe that once Canadians come face to face with abortion, the word "choice" will never again sound the same. In showing these images and voicing the pro-life message we are not condemning post-abortive women, rather we seek to acknowledge their pain by recognizing that they have indeed lost something.

Twenty-three of us took part in “Choice” Chain on January 14, 2012, and for two and a half hours we discussed and exposed a truth which has been silenced for far too long. We’re not professional debaters, nor have we had any formal training in the field of ethics, but what we are is passionate.

Passionate about fighting for the rights of the most vulnerable.

Passionate about seeing abortion numbers not only go down, but eventually become extinct.

Ruth (Lobo) Shaw on Byline (Calgary, AB) - Sun News January 12, 2011

admin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:25:18 +0000

Thumbnail URL:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/92ImmB6phGQ/0.jpg

Weight:

Ruth (Lobo) Shaw discusses proposed discrimination against pro-life clubs and shooting sports clubs at Carleton University.

ETK Podcast 2 - Killing Girls and the Captain of a Shipwreck Disaster

jshaw — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:43:37 +0000

In this second edition of the ETK podcast, Stephanie Gray and Jonathon Van Maren discuss the debate surrounding sex-selective abortions in Canada and the recent "expose" of crisis pregnancy centres in Vancouver. Alongside this interesting and gripping discussion, they explore the idea that the captain of the shipwrecked Costa Concordia had a responsibility to the passengers on board, just as a pregnant woman has a responsibility to her pre-born child.

Music By: GreendJohn

Title: Apotheosis

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_2_-_killing_girls_and_the_captain_of_a_shipwreck_disaster.mp3	38.72 MB

From West To East: Youth Rise Up To EndtheKilling in 2012!

jvanmaren — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:40:12 +0000

by Ruth (Lobo) Shaw

Many of you have heard about CCBR’s initative to EndtheKilling in Canada in the next twenty years. When CCBR first introduced this plan, the reactions ranged from excitement and enthusiasm to intense criticism. This, of course, begs the question of whether as a pro-life movement we actually believe that we can end abortion in our lifetime. And, to be honest, I have had my doubts in the past. But not anymore.

When the EndtheKilling plan was introduced, it was not merely a nice thought with an idealistic title, it was a cohesive plan with a strong vision. It is not merely a facelift to an idea that we all profess to follow. So, what has CCBR been doing to implement this plan?

My job with CCBR is to train individuals, pro-life groups, and activism groups in how to execute, maintain and become involved in pro-life street activism in their city. In order to end abortion in Canada, we need country-wide exposure of the humanity of the pre-born and the inhumanity of abortion. As a result, we have designated our main street project, “Choice” Chain, to become the project that groups across Canada can easily take on in their area to do just that. Over the past six months, CCBR has inspired, trained, and enabled young people across Canada to do something concrete to end abortion in their city.

I want to introduce you to the men and women who are actively shaping the next generation. These young people are standing up for the pre-born in a new way, a way that is setting a standard for youth across this country. They will end abortion in our lifetime.

Valley Against Abortion

Leaders: James Kanis and Belinda VanWinKoop

Group Affiliation: Chilliwack Pro-Life

In November, I had the privilege of going to Aldergrove/Langely and Chilliwack, BC to train 100 young people in pro-life apologetics and pro-life activism. James and Belinda have recently stepped up as leaders and held a second refresher training (along with the UFV pro-life club) for young people in the area. Unfortunately, they were snowed in on their first scheduled “Choice” Chain but there are already plans in the works to set a new date!

Vancouver Against Abortion:

Leaders: Ania Kasprzak and Jeanne Neuls

Group Affiliation: Campaign Life Coalition BC

These are two powerful women in the pro-life movement today. After having been trained by CCBR along with 25 other people in Vancouver, Ania and Jeanne formed Vancouver Against Abortion. Ania is the current President of UBC Lifeline, and Jeanne, though new to the pro-life movement, has begun to use her abortion testimony to prove to Vancouver that abortion is a grievous crime against children and women.

The Abortion Awareness Project

Leader: Maaike Rosendal

Group Affiliation: Lethbridge and District Pro-Life

Since having been trained by CCBR in July, Maaike has taken on our activism projects with great dedication. Maaike has held “Choice” Chain approximately twice a week and has trained over 40 young people in her area. She has also bravely dealt with hostility from people on the street as well as police. She is also a mother of two children (one pre-born!) and continues to bring awareness to the abortion issue in her city, despite freezing temperatures.

Edmonton Against Abortion

Leader: Ania Biernacka

Here is one woman who is familiar with doing hard things! Ania is a former member of the infamous Campus Pro-Life Club at the University of Calgary. She has now stepped up with three other young people to start regular pro-life activism in Edmonton. They are in the midst of recruiting and fundraising for their materials.

Campaign Life Coalition Youth “Choice” Chain Campaign

Leader: Alissa Golob

Group Affiliation: Campaign Life Coalition Toronto

No stranger to controversial pro-life work, Alissa Golob is well recognized by the pro-abortion movement as a force to be reckoned with. Though she is running several other campaigns (Defund Abortion Campaign, for example), Alissa has taken on running “Choice” Chain in Toronto. This past fall, she facilitated pro-life activism training for 50 young people. “Choice” Chain is set to launch on January 28^th, 2012.

Ottawa Against Abortion

Leaders: Raphael Deketele and Taylor Hyatt

Both new to the pro-life movement, these two young people are truly inspiring. Running both the local activism group and their controversial campus club, Carleton Lifeline, Raphael and Taylor are a serious threat to the abortion movement in Canada. Since having been trained in September by CCBR with 30 other people, Raphael and Taylor have lead the charge to having “Choice” Chain done in the city at least once or twice a week for the past 6 months.

These young people have a sense of social responsibility that is hard to find in young people these days. They are striving for change passionately in their hometowns, and it is so encouraging to see!

“Choice” Chain is not a difficult project to take on in your town. It provides a concrete opportunity for individuals in your community to do something to end abortion, and allows for greater unity to be had in the pro-life movement across Canada. Here are some stories of minds and hearts being changed at “Choice” Chain already.

Here are 6 easy steps you need to follow in order to start “Choice” Chain in your area:

1. Contact Ruth (Lobo) Shaw to receive a copy of our “Choice” Chain Manual for Leaders at rshaw@unmaskingchoice.ca.

2. Find 3 other people who will run activism with you in your city.

3. Ask your local pro-life organization to fund your activism projects. If not, start a group of your own and fundraise. It costs less money to save babies than to kill them!

4. Recruit individuals to join you in doing pro-life activism.

5. Invite CCBR to help you train individuals in pro-life apologetics and pro life activism.

6. Go and save babies on the streets of your city!!!

If you would like to start pro-life activism in your community, please contact CCBR via Ruth (Lobo) Shaw! We all have something we can do to end the killing in our lifetime.

What will you do?

ETK Podcast 1 - The Importance of Pro-Life Apologetics

cperri — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:45:30 +0000

Stephanie Gray and Jonathon Van Maren present the first edition of the EndtheKilling podcast, a weekly discussion of current events, pro-life activism, strategy, and how we can end the killing of our pre-born neighbors! In this podcast, they discuss the importance of pro-life apologetics in the public square using current events.

Music by: GreendJohn

Title: Apotheosis

Attachment	Size
etk_podcast_1_-_the_importance_of_apologetics.mp3	22.01 MB

"Pro-choice"- but only when it comes to killing babies

jvanmaren — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:41:51 +0000

by Jonathon Van Maren

As the abortion debate in Canada heats up and growing numbers of young people join the fray, abortion advocates are getting increasingly nervous. This isn’t surprising, of course. With biology, embryology, and a philosophically consistent view of human rights on the pro-life side, abortion advocates have very few coherent arguments left to present. The “pro-choice” answer to this dilemma? Soviet Union-style censorship and suppression.

While both censorship and suppression of pro-lifers has happened with increasing frequency in the last few years—pro-life clubs being decertified and defunded, university students at Carleton being arrested on their own campus for attempting to display the Genocide Awareness Project—pro-abortion students at Carleton university upped the ante this week when they submitted a referendum question to the Carleton University Student Association. It reads, “Are you in favour of banning groups such as Lifeline, the Genocide Awareness Project, Campaign for Life Coalition and other organizations that use inaccurate information and violent images to discourage women from exploring all options in the event of pregnancy from Carleton University?”

Keep in mind here that Carleton Lifeline was decertified and defunded by the student union in December of 2010. This, of course, occurred several months after campus security summoned a large contingent of police officers to have four university students arrested on their own campus for attempting to erect a graphic abortion display. With pro-life students already thoroughly censored in every way officially possible, pro-abortion students have stepped up proudly to protect the fragile minds of university students at risk of being exposed to new ideas. Essentially, they are asking the student union to evict pro-life students from campus. Pro-lifers already have no officially sanctioned club—but the very presence of differing views has led these open-minded "students" to conclude that not enough has been done. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That probably got covered up by an autographed poster of Kim Jong Il.

It’s hard to express in words just how disgusting the actions of these totalitarian abortion advocates are. They have essentially appointed themselves the Commissioners of What is Acceptable, and only views that they consider to be “non-offensive” should be permitted. Exactly what does the pro-abortion crowd think a university is for, if not for a free discussion? Bad ideas should hang themselves, not be lynched by the self-styled thought police. I’m not sure what these people expect from university, but it is certainly not an education.

As columnist George Jonas noted, “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be kept in a cool and dry place, out of the reach of children.”

I think the intellectually honest will admit that there is something fundamentally suspicious about a group that claims to have all the answers and claims to occupy the moral high ground, yet refuses to engage in any sort of rational discourse, instead relying on police officers and official censorship to ensure the prevalence of their views. This is arrogance mixed with a crippling fear—the fear that if the discussion takes place, they will lose.

And so they will.

David John: A Life Worth Living

jvanmaren — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:07:06 +0000

by Trish Anker

Editor’s Note: Often while engaging people in discussions about abortion, we pro-lifers are presented with the argument that abortion should be permitted in cases where the child will not survive outside the womb. We find this view to be a tragic mischaracterization of the value of human life: Children are not valuable based on how long they are with us, but based on the fact that they are an intrinsically valuable member of the human family. Their lives can touch our lives, and can in their short time with us teach us more than even our friends around us. The story of David John Anker is one such story. After reading this story, I hope that you, too, can agree that his life was as valuable as yours and mine.

I will never forget the joy and thankfulness I felt when I got the call telling me that I was pregnant.

Other than feeling extremely nauseous and tired, my first trimester went well. I had my first ultrasound at twelve weeks and was extremely thankful to see that everything looked perfect with our baby.

On November 13, 2002, I was scheduled for my twenty-week ultrasound. My husband Dave had been unable to attend any of my previous doctor's appointments or ultrasounds so he took the day off and we decided to take our daughter Jasey with us as well, to give her a first look at the new baby. We were blissfully unaware of the tragic news we would receive and we didn't even think to be concerned that anything could be wrong.

The technician began the ultrasound and after a couple of minutes, she murmured that there wasn't very much amniotic fluid. I ignorantly asked if that was bad. She continued moving the wand around my belly and without looking at me she said, "I'll have the doctor come in and talk to you when I'm finished here." I remember the sick feeling in my stomach as Dave and I looked at each other anxiously. She did her best to make the rest of the ultrasound seem normal as she measured various body parts and pointed out the head and perfect little hands and feet. We tried to concentrate, but our minds were racing, trying to imagine what could be wrong. When she'd finished she told us the doctor would be in to talk to us shortly. Fearing the worst, I asked Dave to take Jasey into the waiting room while I waited for the doctor.

The doctor came in and his first words were "I'm so sorry." I immediately began to cry, but tried to compose myself while he told me that I had a dangerously low amount of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby and I would have to go for a more detailed ultrasound at Swedish Hospital in Seattle. I asked what caused this, and he told me that our child's kidneys hadn't developed properly. This condition is known as “Potter’s Syndrome.” In a normal pregnancy, the baby swallows the amniotic fluid, urinates it out again, and keeps replenishing the supply. When there isn't enough fluid, the baby's lungs also don't develop normally. When I asked what that meant for our baby, he said he didn't want to say too much: But generally, these babies were not compatible with life.

There are no words to describe the devastation I felt when he said those words. I didn't care who heard me crying as I got dressed and ready to tell Dave that the baby we already loved so much was going to die. I don't remember much about the meeting with the doctor, but one thing stands out: That one of the first things he said was that in a case like this we should think about terminating the pregnancy. We didn't hesitate, and told him we would never even consider that, since we believe only God can create life and only He has the right to end life. It was like a slap in our faces to hear that since our baby would probably not be able to live outside my womb; his life had no more value. Dave and I cried the whole way home. We dreaded making the calls to our families because telling them made it even more real. Everyone was devastated. We spent hours on the internet trying to find something that would offer us even a little hope, but everything we read only confirmed what the doctor had told us. Our baby would likely be stillborn or at the most, survive a few hours.

On November 20th, we had our appointment at Swedish Hospital. We hoped that maybe the state of the art ultrasound machines would show that miraculously there was a normal amount of fluid, but the news was no more hopeful this time. We asked if the technician could tell us if our baby was a boy or girl, and she said that there wasn't enough amniotic fluid for her to get a good look, but since about 80% of babies with Potter’s Syndrome are boys, there was a good chance it was a boy. We had felt all along that this baby was a boy and had chosen the name David John, after Dave and his father. After the ultrasound, we met with a genetic counsellor who kindly but bluntly told us that our baby had 0% chance of survival outside the womb. He told us he was required to let us know that termination of the pregnancy was an option, but once again we said that was not even an option in our minds. He said that it was likely that in the next eight weeks, our baby would die. What a grim prediction. The unknown felt terrifying. When we asked if our baby was in any pain, he told us that David was completely safe and pain-free inside my womb, which gave us some small comfort. To imagine that our baby would have to die soon was awful, but to think that he was in pain would have added to the anguish we already felt.

At my next doctor's appointment, I had the same doctor who seen me on the day of my ultrasound and when he came into the room, he looked puzzled and asked me what I was here for. When I told him I was there for my prenatal check-up, he said, "What for? You do know your baby isn't going to survive, right?" I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach but asked if he would please let me listen to the baby's heartbeat. He reluctantly did so and it was a relief to hear the sound of his heartbeat galloping. Because I knew we would most likely never get to see our baby alive, I treasured moments like these more than ever.

We begged God to heal him and spent a lot of time during the following months with our hands on my growing belly feeling our baby kick and squirm, and made sure that Jasey felt included in those times so he would feel real to her as well. We hoped and prayed that David knew how much we loved him and counted every day of my pregnancy as a blessing. That is not to say that it wasn't an extremely difficult time! We struggled to accept God's will, and although it is painful for me to admit now, there were times as I grew bigger and more uncomfortable that I wished for it all to be over.

My doctor continued to monitor my pregnancy as the weeks passed and he was surprised by the fact that David continued to grow and thrive. When I was about thirty-two weeks along in my pregnancy, he decided to send me to get another ultrasound at Swedish Hospital to see if there was any change in David’s development. I remember coming out of that doctor's appointment feeling like everything had been turned upside down again. Was there reason to hope? We didn't know, but anxiously awaited our appointment scheduled for February 21, 2003.

The night before my appointment, I brought Jasey to my mom's house for the night. I didn't know it then, but God was orchestrating everything for David's arrival. I was barely home when my legs and back began to ache. The pain in my back grew increasingly intense and I remember asking Dave if he thought it was possible that I might be in labour. I looked up the symptoms of pre-term labour and it confirmed that I was indeed in labour. We were extremely nervous, but tried to get some sleep. Dave fell asleep but I tossed and turned from the pain and began shivering uncontrollably with fear and anxiety. After a couple of hours, I told Dave we should go to the hospital. It is hard to put into words the range of emotions we felt. On the one hand, we were terrified and filled with sorrow to think that our baby's short life was coming to an end, but on the other hand we felt excitement to finally be meeting our son. What would he look like? Would he live for a short time? Both Dave and I prayed constantly for David's precious life and soul to be spared and that we would be given the strength to face the most difficult time in our lives.

The following hours were a blur. The doctors ran blood work to try to find out why I had a fever of 103, and ordered different medications to try and stop my labour so that we could try to make our appointment at Swedish Hospital later that day. My labour couldn't be stopped so my doctor decided to send me by ambulance to Seattle so we would be in a hospital with a NICU equipped to handle a baby with extensive handicaps in the possibility that he would survive his birth. My pain was unbearable and I begged for medication to take it away. I only vaguely remember most of that day since I was in a drug induced haze. When we arrived at Swedish Hospital, one last ultrasound was administered to see if anything had changed in David's status but the results were the same as every other time. It seemed to be a cruel mistake as his heartbeat was still so strong and Dave still held onto one last shred of hope that God would still perform a miracle. At the very least we hoped that David would live for a short time, but as I had lost so much blood and was still running a high fever, the doctors strongly recommended that I deliver him naturally rather than have a C-section.

My family had arrived and went to the waiting room to await news of David's birth. His delivery was long and very painful. He was breech and progress was slow. I vaguely remember one of the nurses turning off the heart monitor at some point and I asked if he was still alive. She listened carefully, and sadly shook her head. The sorrow was unbearable! What pain had he endured during his struggle to be born? At what moment had his heart stopped beating? It was so painful to think we had missed seeing him alive by moments. After he was born, one of our nurses cleaned him up and placed him into my arms. He was still warm and merely looked as though he was sleeping. Dave and I held him and kissed him with tears streaming down our faces. Then Dave went to call my family to meet our son. I will never forget the sound of my mom and sisters weeping as they came down the hall. It was such an awful moment, yet Dave and I felt such pride in our beautiful son and were so thankful to share him with our loved ones.

We held him for hours and told him how much we loved him. When it was finally time to let him go, it was so hard to let the nurse take him and put him in his little bassinet. I will never forget the moment when she pulled the sheet over his face as she prepared to leave our room. It was such a brutal reality: Our son was dead.

We were so thankful that we had our precious little girl to hold when we got home. Her innocent chatter and affectionate nature was the best medicine for the awful sadness of the following days and months.

To this day we have regrets about the short time we spent with David. I wish I hadn't been so drugged, that I could have experienced that time with more clarity. I wish I had held him longer, and that Jasey could have met her baby brother. I wish I could have had him closer to home so more family and friends could have come to see him, but the one thing I will NEVER regret is that we chose not to end his life. He was our son, loved and longed for, and his life, although short, has touched our lives and the lives of our family and closest friends unforgettably. However short, his life was truly worth living.

Sarah's Key: A Book and Film Review

jvanmaren — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:12:18 +0000

By Stephanie Gray

“When I think this happened in the middle of Paris, right in front of everyone—it’s disgusting!”

This comment posed by a reporter in the film Sarah’s Key, based on the novel, is about the horrific Vel d’Hiv roundup of Jewish children, women, and men in Nazi-occupied France by the French police in July 1942. After being held in inhumane conditions, these innocent souls were transported to the further tortuous conditions of the infamous concentration camps.

This story prompts much thought about Holocaust history and unexpectedly includes a storyline about abortion—leaving many parallels and insights for the pro-life movement to glean.

Sarah’s Key interweaves the story of two women—Sarah Starzynksi, a child-survivor of the Vel d’Hiv roundup, and Julia Jarmond, a reporter who, 60 years later, is eager to figure out the mystery of how her in-laws are connected to Sarah’s story. It is very much a tale of children, of innocence, of good versus evil, of loss, trauma, and redemption.

Early on, we see a gut-wrenching scene of children being ripped out of their mothers’ arms. The novel states, “The policemen fell upon them like a swarm of large, dark birds…The girl watched it all…She heard the screams, the yells, she saw the women hurling themselves to the ground, their hands pulling at their children’s clothes…She watched the policemen raise their truncheons and bludgeon the women’s heads, their faces. She saw a woman collapse, her nose a bloody pulp.”

Oh, the extent a mother will go to protect her child! Yet tragically the mothers were overpowered by the police and in the aftermath, the camera pans in as 10-year-old Sarah curls into a fetal position on the dusty ground, foreshadowing what was to come next in the story: pages later we learn of Julia becoming unexpectedly pregnant at 45. And while her child nestles in fetal position in her womb, while she studies the torture of the Vel d’Hiv children, her husband declares that he wants her to have an abortion.

The mothers were betrayed by the police. And now Julia is betrayed by her husband. But will she fight for her child the way the Vel d’Hiv mothers did? On the verge of succumbing to her husband’s pressure, Julia goes to the abortion clinic. It appears no accident that the only day available is July 16, 2002—the anniversary of the Vel d’Hiv roundup. With moments to spare, a voicemail about her research into Sarah’s past and a news story about that fateful anniversary seem key to convicting Julia to change her mind: “I’m not going to do this,” she declares. “I want to keep this baby.” And so, it appears the children of the past play a role in saving a child of the present.

The loss of a child, particularly at one’s hands, has a devastating, life-altering impact. Julia was spared that suffering. Tragically, Sarah was not. In her naiveté and in her desire to preserve life, Sarah innocently locked her brother in a cupboard to hide him from the police. She didn’t know her family was being taken to concentration camps. She didn’t know there would be no chance to return to free him in time. His death was not her fault, but when circumstances lead to her escape and eventual return to the apartment, she couldn’t help but be forever traumatized by coming face to face with the corpse of the little boy she loved so deeply.

Until she discovered it was too late, Sarah’s waking moments were preoccupied with finding a way of escaping in order to free her brother. Her whole world was focused, not on herself, but on the other. His innocence, vulnerability, and defenselessness drove her to do everything possible to return to the cupboard.

So it should be with each one of us. Pre-born children are in a similarly vulnerable state and without our intervention, without our plea on their behalf, they will die. The reporter’s sentiments about the Vel d’Hiv roundup could be echoed about abortion: “When I think this happens in the middle of communities across Canada, that over 270 pre-born children are killed daily, right in front of everyone—it’s disgusting!” If we fail, we will have to come face-to-face with the rotting corpses of these children.

In accepting such failure, giving way to despair is not the answer. If only Sarah had realized her inability to save a child in the past could be used as motivation to save people in the present who are in need. If only she had realized that the loss of her brother’s life was a tragedy that would be made worse by the loss of her life. If only she’d been aware of the insight of Holocaust-survivor Viktor Frankl who opposed suicide amidst suffering and who wrote,

“…any attempt to restore a man’s inner strength in the camp had first to succeed in showing him some future goal…Woe to him who saw no more sense in his life, no aim, no purpose, and therefore no point in carrying on. He was soon lost. The typical reply with which such a man rejected all encouraging arguments was, ‘I have nothing to expect from life anymore.’

“What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.”

Life expected something from Sarah but wrongly, in her despair, she cut it short with suicide. Life expected something from Julia too, and she made a choice to embrace life amidst hardship, a lesson we could all benefit from.

When Julia meets the only child of Sarah, a man of about her age, she has her toddler with her. As Sarah’s son asks Julia what the little girl’s name is—the little girl whose life had been on the verge of being ended by a cruel act of abortion, a little girl whose life was spared by how Sarah’s story interwove with Julia’s life—Julia declares,

“Her name is Sarah.”

Editor's Note: This review is the first in a series. There is much that those in the pro-life movement can glean from stories of the past--stories that are relayed to us through novels, documentaries, and films. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform plans to regularly release reviews of current releases in these areas to encourage pro-lifers to learn lessons not only on the front lines, but in their everyday life!