updated January 25 2018
Alan Bloom wrote “The most successful tyranny is not one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities…that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.”
Unlike many cultures whose value system is based on honour/shame which denies the equal intrinsic value of all life, our western culture is based on the sanctity and dignity of all life. And that includes the intrinsic value of the unborn child. There are many views on abortion. I have written about this extensively in my book Back to the Ethic: Reclaiming Western Values. Whether one believes that life begins at conception or life begins at birth, the problem we are facing in Canada is Prime Minister “Sunny Ways” Justin Trudeau. He has decided that of all the rights and privileges with which we are blessed, the most important one of all is the right of women to abort a fetus-at any time and for any reason. Nothing must get in the way of that right. Nothing.
Elie Wiesel wrote : “One may not go beyond a certain limit; to live is good, to want to live is human, but not at the expense of another’s death.”
These are Trudeau’s personal beliefs.
Defending rights and freedoms “is at the core of who I am and, quite frankly, is at the core of who Canada is. … At the same time, we need to know that there is a difference between freedom of expression and acting on those expressions and beliefs.”
And he said
“An organization that has the explicit purpose of restricting women’s rights by removing rights to abortion, the right for women to control their own bodies, is not in line with where we are as a government and quite frankly where we are as a society.”
But if you are religious in any way? Tough. That you believe in the sanctity of all life? Tough.
Pity he didn’t take a page from Barack Obama from his “Call to Renewal” keynote address on June 28, 2006, in Washington D.C.:
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King—indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history—were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religion to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
He has made this right to abort so important that non-profit groups, small businesses and public-sector employers who hire summer students and apply for funds from the Canada Summer Jobs Programme must agree to tick off the box that says they agree with unlimited abortion; because this is HIS core value of all Canadian values. Now, if you don’t agree-that’s OK. Just lie.
The employment minister, Patricia Hajdu, told churches that they should just check the box on the online form and apply anyway. Trudeau has decided for the millions of people who do not believe in unfettered abortion, for whatever reason, that they have no right to disagree. He has abused the absence of a law in Canada regarding abortion to claim his law, the only law. Last time I looked that was the act of a dictator. Oh wait. Why not? Our PM lauds dictators from Fidel Castro to the leaders of China.
Does “our father our king” approve of delivering live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy and then severing their spinal cords with scissors in an act called “snipping.”
How about aborting a seven and a half month fetus by inducing labour and then snipping the spinal cord? Have you seen a seven month preemie? I have, and today he is almost two years old, but without abortion laws a seven month preemie /fetus can be “aborted.” Perhaps Mr. Prime Minister you should visit a kangaroo. Check out her joey that lives in a pouch for many months. Cradle it and then imagine slicing and dicing off the limbs.
Is “our father our king” promoting unfettered abortion as has been reported in the USA?
“Our father our king,” is it acceptable to plan an abortion for maximum protection of the baby body parts to keep them viable for sale as has been done by Planned Parenthood despite the fact that a late term fetus feels pain?
“…you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” After all “If you induce a demise before the procedure, nobody’s going to say you did a ‘live’—whatever the federal government calls it. Partial-birth abortion…”
Alan Bloom wrote “The most successful tyranny is not one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities…that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.”
It seems that the President and Vice President of the USA have decided that they will use their position to talk about other possibilities, beginning with “Love saves lives.” From there adoption is promoted. And assisting pregnant homeless women to keep their babies and raise them with the help of organizations like “Room at the Inn.”
Instead of promoting abortion (the supreme right according to Trudeau) President Trump said at the March for Life January 19, 2018:
“You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred.”
This concept of the sacredness, the sanctity of life, differentiates western culture from many others. China’s one child policy led to endless abortion-forced by the government. And let us not forget cultures which abort female fetuses.
“Sunny Ways” Trudeau seems to be at his wits end-referring to the “matter” as a “kerfuffle”-is that anything like a cofveve?
From the Ethics of the Fathers: “Rabbi Tarfon used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it.”
