Courageous Mothers Thanked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This was sent May 26 to the London Free Press in reply to James Phipps piece which has been posted above.

"Prof. James Phipps in his VoxPop article, May 26, “Morgentaler degree highlights decline in standards” made a fine reasoned argument about the
political import of the decision to award this infamous Canadian. It certainly made far more sense then the mindless meanderings of A.K. Riley, Gayle Kirshenbaum and Rev. Leaf Seligman which have appeared in recent weeks. I would also like to commend Herman Goodden for keeping the many Canadians who are keenly interested in this controversy informed.

As for the Free Press you should be ashamed to call yourselves “free” as your selection of letters and opinion pieces has favored a campaign of misinformation, obfuscation and trivialization. While the lives of children are being lost daily and their mothers harmed a truly free press would do everything to enlighten, educate and encourage Canadians to recognize the dignity and to preserve the sanctity of all human life.

This is the greatest human rights issue of our day and it is a cruel game to deflect prolife debate in favor of nonsensical, dishonest rhetoric.
 
Saturday, May 28 the Free Press had two letters on abortion. The first “Not all studies back abortion rights view” is from the executive director of LifeCanada from Ottawa refuting Dr. Mary McKim posted above. It has been a long time waiting to hear the other side of the story but the editor has finally throwing a few crumbs to the prolife camp. Thank you to anyone who wrote or contacted the Free Press to encourage a fair hearing of the evidence.

canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Letters/
 
Here is the Free Press letter.

"Not all studies back abortion rights view

In her letter, Level-headed views on abortion issue (May 16), Dr. Mary McKim is wrong to say that, in every poll taken in the past 30 years, more than 60 per cent of Canadians agree it is “a woman’s right to choose.”

For the past three years, LifeCanada has commissioned a poll on the issue of abortion and found significantly different results. The October 2004 poll conducted by the Environics Research Group showed that 33 per cent of Canadians believe the law should protect human life from conception on, and 24 per cent believe legal protection should be available after three months of pregnancy.

This means that 57 per cent of Canadians are opposed to abortions performed beyond the first trimester of pregnancy. Only 28 per cent of Canadians support the status quo of providing legal protection from the point of birth only. Leger Marketing reported similar findings in 2002 and 2003.

Another point that needs to be addressed is the issue of supposedly “safe abortions.”

A recent book published by the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, examined more than 500 articles from medical and scientific journals, which document risks, side- effects and long- and short-term consequences of abortion.

The research reveals that abortion is definitely not as safe as abortion rights advocates would lead us to believe. Pretending that abortion is a safe procedure is unfair to women. They deserve to be told about all the health risks of abortion before they agree to the procedure."

Carroll Rees, Executive director, LifeCanada ,Ottawa
 
Unfortunately, the LFP also published this one from a mother upset about the graphic abortion photos this morning too. May 28.

"Abortion protesters’ pictures too graphic
I want to address the issue of abortion protesters at the corner of Wellington and Commissioners roads.

The message they are portraying is not the issue. I do not support abortion, and I applaud them for trying to do something about it.

I do have an issue, however, with the graphic nature of their signs. At such a busy intersection, I found myself stopped at the light with a disturbing picture of an aborted baby just a few feet away from my car.

When I looked in my rearview mirror, I saw my six-year-old staring, with all the curiosity a child has, at this horrible image.

For me, and thousands of other Londoners who have made the choice to become parents and raise happy, healthy children, I don’t see how these graphic pictures should be allowed or why our children should be subjected to something so inconceivable at such a delicate age.

It’s just not right."

Tania Loos, London
 
I just sent a letter to congratulate Carroll Rees on her fine letter “Not all studies back abortion rights view”. With all the media censorship in Canada this is a small victory for truth. Prolifers may give her a word of encouragement at:

info@lifecanada.org

Website: www.lifecanada.org
 
Monday, May 30 London Free Press, Rebuttal:** "Vocal minority forcing its view hardly ‘democracy’** by Volker Nolte .

"Regarding Mark Richardson’s column, "Protest against Western goes virtual (May 17). As a faculty member of the University of Western, I am following with interest the discussion about the plan to present an honorary degree to Henry Morgentaler.

However, to call any potential change in these plans a “victory for democracy” is rather bewildering. Is it truly a sign of democracy if a small minority gets its way only because it is forceful?

As I understand democracy, it entails open discussion, acceptance of arguments and the vote of the majority. How about open discussion?

The fact is that thousands of Canadian women every year are desperate enough to undergo a procedure that is certainly not pleasant and includes extreme physical and psychological stress.

Obviously, the groups that oppose abortion are not offering a better way for these women to solve their problem. Certainly, one would rather have these women going to hospitals to receive proper physical and psychological care, instead of having them search for help from dark channels.

From this point of view, Morgentaler has saved many lives.

The same group of people who oppose honouring Morgentaler would have opposed an honorary degree for astronomer and scientist Galileo, whose 16th and 17th century studies were a radical departure from then accepted thought.

Like-thinking people also found reasons to support crusades hundreds of years ago.

I could go on listing questionable measures supported by Christian groups, all under the premise of their principles. And all this, although the Bible states people should be open-minded and respect other peoples’ views.

If a real democratic process was in place, The London Free Press would have to allow for 40 editorials, all with different views on certain topics, for each one of Richardson’s. He noted there were 25 Western faculty names on a website protest list, but there are 40 times more faculty in total at Western.

I am not opposed to protests over abortion, but I am opposed that any group can force its view on all of us, only because it is loud enough."
 
“Obviously, the groups that oppose abortion are not offering a better way for these women to solve their problem.”
It isn’t obvious at all.
#1. An unborn baby is not the problem rather it is the parents, the grandparents, the husbands, boyfriends, doctors and everyone else who has a problem with their thinking because they blame a person totally innocent of any wrongdoing and label him a problem merely because he/she has come into existence. The first response to new life should be one of joy and welcome, after that move unto finding solutions to the problems the mother may have. Killing the unborn is not a solution because the child is not the problem.
 
I gave Nolter’s comment some further thought and sent yet another letter into the Free Press - not that I’m expecting them to publish it but simply as a pressure tactic and hopefully to give someone at the editor’s desk something to think about.

**"Volker Nolter in his rebuttal May 30 said, 'Obviously, the groups that **oppose abortion are not offering a better way for these women to solve their problem.'

**An unborn baby is not the problem rather it is the parents, the ****grandparents, the husbands, boyfriends and everyone else who has the problem and that problem is their thinking when they blame a person totally innocent of any wrongdoing and label him a problem merely because he/she has come **into existence.

**The first response to new life should always be one of joy and welcome; after that, when circumstances are less than ideal, move unto solving those problems. While some choose to think of the child as a ‘problem’ many couples would eagerly adopt that “unwanted” child as a member of their family. What could be more unselfish then to sacrifice one’s child to loving ****adoptive parents and what could be more selfish then to decide the child **should die rather than let anyone else have him? Killing the unborn is not a solution because the child is not the problem.

**Many times I have shared the agony of family members faced with difficult choices. Fortunately, these mothers said yes to life and their children have grown up to grace this world with their love, beauty and talent. Never has anyone of them cursed their mother for giving them life despite all the difficulties, hardship and challenges. We faced them all as a family should: **together."
 
Some beautiful thoughts from our beloved Holy Father on Zenith which likewise give us encouragement and counsel while in the midst of controversy and debate.

On May 8, during the Regina Caeli, Pope Benedict XVI said:

" In the present age of the image, the media effectively constitute extraordinary resources to promote the solidarity and understanding of the human family. We have had proof of this recently on the occasion of the death and solemn funeral rites of my beloved predecessor, John Paul II. However, it all depends on the way they are used.

" These important instruments of communication can favor reciprocal knowledge and dialogue or, on the contrary, fuel prejudice and contempt among individuals and peoples; they can contribute to spread peace or to foment violence. For this reason, people must always be reminded of their responsibilities; it is necessary that all do what corresponds to them to ensure objectivity, respect for human dignity and attention to the common good in all forms of communication. In this way a contribution is made to bring down the walls of hostility that still divide humanity and to consolidate bonds of friendship and love which are signs of the kingdom of God in history."
 
There were no letters to the editor today about this debate as the space was filled with hockey news instead.

At a track meet today however pupils from a Catholic gradeschool will be wearing black armbands to protest the award to Dr. Mor. They will be competing in an event at the stadium of the very university which selected the abortionist. In a letter by parents, the parish priest and the principal they expressed, “We feel that a need to take this opportunity to be a small light to the world, to teach our children to stand up for our faith and not just let Paul Davenport’s (UWO pres) poor decision to go by with passive acceptance.” Of the 65 pupils 57 have requested to wear the black ribbons.

On another front yet another celebration is being organized by the proabortionist’s side who have just announced their intention to be at the rally planned by the prolifers on June 16 the day Canada’s foremost abortionist and abortion supporter are canonized.(Anyone reading this thread knows Dr. M. has been called saviour and saint by his fawning followers already) It is to be noted the journalist chose to call our side “abortion opponents” while carefully using pro-choice to designate the other side.

On another front the intellectual elite is busy establishing their rationale for religious intolerance and persecution. With a straight face, no doubt, a social ethics professor at a congress at this same university in London, Ontario, Canada said that in order to protect religious freedom “constitutional democracy, the rule of law and human rights have to trump religious beliefs.” In other words, whenever the interests of religion conflict with the secular values of the new world order the faithful will not be tolerated in word or deed. (Note the complaint to the human rights commission against Bishop Henry in Canada for speaking out against same sex marriages.) All this talk about dangerous believers is bound to encourage more open hosility against decent people with the courage to defiantly, publicly protest the culture of death. For more details on the Congress see www.fedcan.ca/congress2005.
 
This appeared in the letters to the editor of the Free Press this morning, June 1.

Western is doing the right thing

"As someone who worked with Dr. Henry Morgentaler, as someone who did graduate work at Western, and as a moral philosopher, I would like to respond to all the negative comments, and praise the university for its decision to honour Morgentaler.

Let us begin with the role of post-secondary educational institutions in our society. Universities are not ivory towers, but are repositories and passers-on of knowledge. University courses must reflect what is going on in the world.

In this regard, Morgentaler figures prominently since his achievements are reflected in a number of courses taught in the university. His court cases are taught in law classes and in political science classes. His overall achievements are taught in various women’s studies courses.

And let us not forget that he has changed laws and practices in this country for the better.

Then there is Morgentaler the person. Anyone who knows him knows he is a truly selfless person.

He is quite prepared to sacrifice his own concerns for the greater good. His time in jail proves that. The fact he has put himself on the line to bring about positive change in our society is a great reason to honour him.

In short, Morgentaler is a great man who has made great achievements which are being reflected in the university curriculum. And that is why he deserves the honour being bestowed upon him."

Bernie Koenig,London,Ontario, Canada
 
In post #23 on May 21 I reported my correspondence with the Canadian Physicians for life and the fact that they had been unsuccessful in finding a newspaper to publish the article prepared by their president Dr. Will Johnston. Well today the Free Press finally did the right thing and gave him an opportunity in the VOXPOP feature to give a rebuttal to what has been a campaign of one-sided arguments for the most part.

**UWO’s dishonourable Morgentaler decision **

"Donald McDougall, chair of the University of Western Ontario board of governors, is to be congratulated and thanked for his firm stand against the recent action of a committee of the UWO senate.

If Henry Morgentaler had become notorious for illegally supplying women with a drug which 17 studies have linked to breast cancer and which increases the chance of dangerous future premature delivery, placenta previa, ectopic pregnancy and low birth weight, and which is harmful to the point of increasing the suicide rate for depressed or thought-disordered women, it is not likely the UWO senate would have been fooled into honouring him…
 
Dr. Will Johnston continues…

"Strangely, because that “drug” is the procedure called induced abortion, he will declared a doctor of laws, honoris causa. The UWO news release announcing this reads like a tract full of the shrill euphemisms of the abortion partisan, where the concepts “child” and “dead” need not intrude.

Up until now, people who celebrate Morgentaler have been narrow ideologues of the abortion subculture, and so it is a surprise to see a university body, which could be expected to represent a broader constituency, so eager to identify with such extremism.

Morgentaler is indeed an unusual man. A little more than 20 years after narrowly escaping death at the hands of a system that operated by attaining a tacit public agreement to ignore the humanity of its victims, Morgentaler turned away from the practice of medicine to do abortions.

His disregard for the law was lauded by some as courage, while for others it seemed more obviously a shrewd calculation of the way the wind was blowing through that part of the power elite who were impatient to endorse a disregard for the unborn child, far beyond anything for which they could obtain a democratic mandate…
 
Dr. Will Johnston continues…

"That elite protected Morgentaler and admired the transgressions that could soften the ground for their own legislative agenda. After his Supreme Court conviction, then Justice Minister Ron Basford ordered a retrail to obtain the preferred result.

Morgentaler’s medical competence had come into question more than once. For example, in removing his license to practise in 1976, a medical review panel censured him for “not holding a valid interview before an abortion, for failing almost completely to gather a case history of his client, for failing to perform the necessary pregnancy test or blood test, for not obtaining pathological examination of the ‘tissues’ removed and for failing to follow up the state of health of his patients afterward.”…
 
Dr. Will Johnston continues…

"The perversion of UWO’s honorary degree-granting process, which could deliver an endorsement to Morgentaler, is typical of the perversion of our public life which the prevalence of abortion has caused. Honesty is replaced by euphemism; serious political discourse on many other issues is distorted by irrelevant allusions to the participants’ opinions about abortion; women truly harmed by the procedure are marginalized by the very feminists one would expect to be most supportive of them. The collegiality and integrity of the medical profession have been impaired. Eugenic concepts that fell into well-earned disgrace during the course of the 20th century have been revived…
 
Dr. Will Johnston makes a grand finish…
"Across our nation, there are playgrounds empty of the voices Morgentaler stilled forever, there are schools bereft of the striving of the young who were made into nothing by him, there are women injured, not just in ways they can feel every day, but in ways they have no way of knowing.
A university is a place from which to reach for everything that is honourable and beautiful and true, but on the day the University of Western Ontario is visited by Morgentaler, the ill-advised applause will make that university into something less."
** Kindly take a few moment to congratulate Physicians for Life for their fine work because they are certain to be bombarded with a lot of hostile email. **
www.physiciansforlife.ca
 
London Free Press, June 2

UWO controversy unfair to graduates

"With all due respect, Jim Turk’s argument in his column, Academic freedom key to UWO debate (May 27), has serious flaws.

Yes, “universities are supposed to be centres of controversy,” and, yes, “academic freedom lies at the very heart of the modern university.” There would be no objection to Henry Morgentaler speaking at UWO.

However, a convocation does not take place in a lecture hall, nor is it a forum for discussion.

The graduates and their parents and friends at graduation ceremonies are, for all intents and purposes, a “captive” audience.

Abortion is an emotional and divisive subject, tied to one’s faith and/or value system, and many at this ceremony would strongly oppose Morgentaler’s work and “claim to fame.”

It is unfair, inappropriate and a mistake on the part of UWO to subject these graduates and their supporters to a ceremony honouring such a controversial man.

And please don’t tell me that arrangements have been made for objecting students to receive their degrees at a separate ceremony. The students want to graduate with their classmates and they and their families have some time ago made their arrangements to be at the convocation hall at the designated time.

Two of my children are graduates of UWO and I know how important it is for this day to be one of pride in accomplishment, not one clouded by controversy."

R. M. Hall, London
 
The article the above writer was responding to can be read on posts#36-40. There were a number of contestable arguments by the prof which deserved to be challenged but Hall has a point about the students being a “captive” audience.

It is typical of the Free Press to focus on the rights of the students which any reasonable person would acknowledge are being imposed upon; however, there remains a world of difference between having a bad day and not living so much as a single day ex-utero.

While letters have repeatedly been published making this same point the letters of prolifers remain scarce. This is a numbers game with the editor as he has already explained during the same sex marriage debate. The letters selected are proportionate to the (name removed by moderator)ut he receives from both sides; therefore the more letters from pro-lifers the better our chances of being heard.
 
Letter to the Editor, LFP, June 3

"Abusive approach won’t win support for abortion foes
This letter is to the rabid, frothing woman who was accosting motorists at the UWO while protesting UWO’s decision to confer an honorary doctor of laws degree upon Dr. M, a humanist leader who has promoted the idea that people have a right to control their own sexuality and reproduction, without interference by the state.

I am all for public demonstrations; in fact, demonstrations are essential to the well-being of any democratic society. Demonstrators not only promote their opinions, but have the power to influence people to start caring or pay attention to worldwide issues.

Having said that, I was horrified to be confronted by a woman handing out pamphlets while on my way through the campus.

I was verbally berated and told that I support a “baby killer” and “should be ashamed of myself,” after refusing to take a pamphlet.

Although these protesters may be freely exercising their right to freedom of speech, they are clearly sending the wrong message to observers.

If this protester wanted my attention about an issue, she received it, but negative attention does not produce positive results.

A poor, absurd and violent presentation of a protest allows bystanders to question the motives behind this demonstration.

To have your voice be heard, you must use some sense and charisma to ensure that what is said is rational and just. This is what makes each voice successful.

This is what makes us human."

by Suzanne Hajdu of London
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top