Courageous Mothers Thanked

[Rosalinda]

So what is she saying? Just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral. Even if a priest had “legal status” as Joan Sutter phrased it, sexual abuse would still not deserve respect any more than Dr. M. deserves respect for his actions legal or otherwise it would still be morally wrong.

Furthermore, on what grounds does anyone who proclaims ‘let everyone act according to the dictates of their own conscience’ judge anyone? If there is no objective norm of right and wrong anymore (increasingly that is the case in Canada) she contradicts her own position of “freedom of choice.”

Finally, her judgement is hasty as false allegations happen and are sometimes made to discredit opponents. Isn’t that what happened to Archbishop Pell of Australia?

Just out of “curiosity” is she aware Dr. M. committed thousands of illegal abortions before he won his landmark victory in 1988? His degree on June 16 was all about honoring his courage and conviction to act against a law which he decided for himself was wrong.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This priest letter was so predictable that I just ignored it. Anti-Catholics have a list of issues of which they know absolutely nothing, have no intention of doing the homework, but have a list of party-line attacks about. There’s no point discussing this issues with them because they have no intention of listening. For them it is not a discussion but an opportunity to lecture us on what they have decided is Catholic doctrine. I don’t know how they can live with themselves. I guess it helps to have a clatch of like-minded anti-Catholics around them watching their backs.

 

[Rosalinda]

Paul Berton, Editor-in-chief of LFP, A Tally of Morgentaler stories, June 18.

"There can be few debates in which both sides are so entrenched than the one on abortion.
So it was utterly predictable we had many calls about our coverage of the UWO’s decision to award H.M. an honorary degree this week.

People opposed to the decision said we were not covering it fairly. Those who supported the decision said we had not covered it fairly.

Several callers said if we wrote anything at all about M. --good, bad or indifferent-- they didn’t want their paper delivered.

Here is a rough breakdown of our coverage over the last few weeks:

We ran 74 letters ot the editor related to the event:

37 were from people opposed to M.
37 were from people who supported Western’s decision.
We ran 20 opinion columns:
12 opposed M.
8 supported the UWO decision.

We ran more than 30 articles, but this is where it gets a bit tricky. Such articles are not “for” or “against” (nor should they be obviously) the western decision, but reflect the views of the various opposition and support groups."

Still, our examination finds:

14 articles focused on support for Western’s decision;
17 articles were about people opposed.

It’s important to remember a few things.

One, the opposition generally garners more news than those defending a point of view. It’s the nature of this business.

Think about it: Protesters are generally more colourful and make more noisse and present better photos opportunities than those supporting the status quo.

Opposition politicians tend to use colourful language and government officials tend to use dull, safe language.

G8 protesters generally make for better photographs and news than heads of state.

Also, in this debate at least, those opposed to M. tend to be more vocal than those who support him. And, for better or worse, the media tends to be more reactive than proactive.

I’m not condoning excessive coverage of protests. (In fact, the LFP has been criticized often for ignoring demonstrations by those who oppose legalized abortion.)

But visible protests are a fact of life and lots of people who have nothing to do with either side are often interested because they are so visible (and protesters usually go to great lengths to make them photogenic).

In the end, I was struck most by one remarkable image in yesterday’s aftermath: A photograph by LFP photographer Dave Chidley. It showed a protester wearing a T-shirt saying “Abortion is homicide” talking politely to a woman listening politely carrying a sign saying " I (love) Henry."

One thing is for sure: Recent events forced a lot of people, some who missed the debate as it raged decades ago and who’ve never heard of M., to think–and debate - again.

That’s what universities are all about."

email: pberton@lfpress.com

 

[Rosalinda]

CERC Catholic Education Resource Center found at www.catholiceducation.org has an interesting article called “Retaking the Universities” by Roger Kimball.

catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0261.html

“The use and abuse of academic freedom to indemnify not the expression of unpopular opinions but political incitement of various kinds is one symptom of the degradation of American academic life. The newfound impatience with some extreme examples of that abuse is a heartening sign. Nevertheless, the whole issue of academic freedom is only part of a much larger phenomenon. Academics have an unspoken compact with society. As scholars, their charge is to pursue the truth in their chosen discipline; as teachers, their charge is to help preserve and transmit the truth by encouraging thoughtful study and candid discussion. The largely unspoken nature of this compact was part of its glory — it underscored the element of freedom that has always been a central ingredient in liberal education. To a large extent, that freedom has been violated. How has this happened?”

While the writer is not addressing the M scandal at UWO his historical perspective certainly provides insight into how this could have happened in the first place.

 

[Rosalinda]

So, ‘choice’ makes it all right?
Calgary Herald
Friday, June 17, 2005
Page: A20
Section: The Editorial Page
Byline: Andrea Mrozek
Source: For The Calgary Herald

"In rhetorical battles over abortion, “choice” is the weapon preferred to cut down anyone who doesn’t agree with a “pro-choice” agenda.

And so the federal government wants New Brunswick to pay for abortions performed in private health clinics. Carolyn Bennett, minister of state for public health, told newspapers that was of “huge importance” to her.

Even more important than avoiding a two-tier health-care system, we can suppose. The justification for two-tier abortion services is of course, to ensure “choice.”

And now, choice-rhetoric is used to justify Henry Morgentaler’s honorary doctorate Thursday from the University of Western Ontario. The doctorate was awarded “for his committed campaign in support of a woman’s right to choose,” says Paul Davenport, president of the university.

The UWO is celebrating the perceived social and political implications of abortion. It’s as if Banting and Best received an award, not for the discovery of insulin, but for reducing diabetics’ consumption of sugary foods.

But what Morgentaler’s doctorate really amounts to is a grand celebration of silence and concealed information, an anti-choice agenda if there ever was one. In most public health issues, more information, not less, is preferred. Not so when it comes to abortion.

Have you heard about the French study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in April that showed induced abortions resulted in a 50 per cent increased chance of having a premature baby born before 33 weeks gestation, and 70 per cent higher odds of having a baby before 28 weeks gestation?

Babies born before 28 weeks have a higher incidence of cerebral palsy and generally are at higher risk of having disabilities. The results of the French study confirm an earlier study by an Australian, Judith Lumley. You probably heard about that one, too.

No? Perhaps, then, you’ve heard about the study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in March showing a link between repeat abortions and physical or sexual abuse of women. No luck yet? OK, what about the fact that having an abortion increases overall risk of breast cancer later in life by 30 per cent, as shown by 23 of 37 studies conducted worldwide and written about extensively in the 2003 book Women’s Health After Abortion?

If you did hear any of this, you also heard pro-choicers working to discredit the data as the unscientific meanderings of desperate pro-lifers who harbour a secret anti-women’s rights agenda.

Sure, you say, for every study there is a counterstudy and they can’t all be publicized. But that doesn’t mean the battling studies should be cast away as irrelevant.

In other health matters, we assume caveat emptor. Newspaper readers must wade through conflicting health reports on any number of subjects: obesity, pharmaceutical debates and other medical cause celebres of the hour.

With abortion, information is often not publicized. It’s awfully hard to inform oneself on a topic that in the eyes of many in the media does not exist.

Abortion lies in the shadowlands of Canadian culture. It’s too controversial, no matter how scientific and non-political. And then perhaps it is simply too private.

We don’t discuss prostate cancer day in, day out either. But we do discuss the causes of prostate cancer without hesitation. A growing focus on women’s health broadly defined to include a range from breast cancer to dealing with violence against women – would lead one to believe the privacy factor is not really the issue.

Morgentaler is being lauded as the hero of a movement, which closed the door on the abortion debate, ensuring that Canadians are not comfortable thinking about, let alone talking or writing about abortion.

Too bad, as that ensures that negative information on abortion rarely hits the media, even when the issue is purely a matter of physical health.

The sad irony is that in these developments, choice is a casualty. Many would like to know about associated health risks from having an abortion – and maybe gain that knowledge more than, oh say, five minutes before the wrenching anxiety of finding out they are unexpectedly pregnant.

There are an awful lot of people out there who have decided few should access that information.

That’s their choice. Is it yours?"

Andrea Mrozek is associate editor at the Western Standard.

 

[Rosalinda]

One newspaper photograph of Morgentaler particularly caught my attention. It depicts him standing on the podium with arms outstretched in a triumphal gesture. Now contrast this image with the outstretched arms of our Lord. How ironic how His hands which had only reached out in love to heal received the piercing of nails, whereas Dr. M.'s hands which have repeatedly reached out only to destroy life received an award of appreciation.

 

[Rosalinda]

Here is a letter from a Mormon, Patricia Munt, upset with the young witnesses of “Truth and Love for Life” who marched through London in a funeral procession carrying a coffin before the convocation ceremony which gave two standing applauses for Canada’s gory, glory- seeker Dr. M.

Protests marred students’ special day

"The Morgentaler protesters had a right to be there. We are a free and democratic nation, but I am disgusted by their timing. Protesting at someone’s graduation is scarcely better than the National Rifle Association holding a pro-gun rally right after a young child has been shot.

Students put years of work into attaining their special day, and do not deserve to have it overshadowed by a casket at the gate of their university. Not only were the demonstrators dressed in funeral attire standing around a casket, they were flying the Canadian flag.

With abortion being legal in Canada, the Canadian stance should be pro-choice.

I’m Mormon, and do not personally believe in abortions. And my religion certainly does not support the practice. God gave us the gift of free will, the ability to make choices. He also said that none of us has the right to judge one another. So while you all have a right to your opinion, you have no right to judge others on theirs."

 

[Rosalinda]

That is a wild and unfair analogy to liken citizens outraged by the death of so many innocents with a pro-gun rally after a child had been shot. What was disgusting was the “Celebration of Choice”, the rounds of standing applause and the bestowal of an honour on a man responsible for the mass slaughter of unborn children.

Patricia contradicts her own tenet of refraining from judgement by publicly condemning those who act consistent with their moral values. It is hypocritical to profess, “I do not believe in abortions” and not only to fail to act on that belief but to call disgusting those who do.

Anyone who knows something is wrong is culpable of cooperation with evil
when he gives the forces of darkness a free reign to act without protest, without obstacle or without a modicum of resistance.

Did our Lord not condemn the pharisees because they claimed they were not blind yet still refused to see?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The links don’t work, so I couldn’t read the whole article.

"The use and abuse of academic freedom

to indemnify not the expression of unpopular opinions but political incitement of various kinds is one symptom of the degradation of American academic life.

For Catholic colleges and universities, the governing document is Ex Corde Ecclesiae. When the colleges and universities do not abide by their agreements, when they make decisions behind closed doors, when they lie outright, then they can expect political opposition as a matter of course.

Rosalinda:

The newfound impatience with some extreme examples of that abuse is a heartening sign.

It is a heartening sign to those opposing the abuse of academic freedom as defined by Ex Corde. Those truly attached to open dialogue would merely re-open dialogue with their opponents rather than resorting to impatience over the fact that their subterfuges have been uncovered. The tree is known by its fruit.

Rosalinda:

Nevertheless, the whole issue of academic freedom is only part of a much larger phenomenon. Academics have an unspoken compact with society. As scholars, their charge is to pursue the truth

in their chosen discipline; as teachers, their charge is to help preserve and transmit the truth by encouraging thoughtful study and candid discussion.

Unspoken compact? What? Like the Family Compact? Prestige, nepotism, and power at all costs, first and foremost? What kind of ‘freedom’ is that? Oh, of course: freedom for the few to oppress the many.

Rosalinda:

The largely unspoken nature of this compact was part of its glory —

:ehh:

Rosalinda:

it underscored the element of freedom that has always been a central ingredient in liberal education. To a large extent, that freedom has been violated. How has this happened?"

It happened the usual way. Some people noticed the inconsistencies, sought to reconcile the inconsistencies, became the butt of character assassinations for their efforts, and then took the gloves off. Are those who have wrongfully deployed influence for their own glory at the expense of the Church safe from being exposed and being asked to resign?

No.

 

[Rosalinda]

Ani, Sorry you are having a problem with the hyperlinks included in post #144 on Retaking the Universities by Roger Kimball at the Catholic Education Resource Center. I’ve had that complaint before and I do double check the links before logging out for just that reason. As a matter of fact, I clicked both links and they opened up immediately. If you are still having trouble try a Google search. I didn’t copy more than an excerpt here because it is a lengthy article but well worth the read. It will also clarify what compact Kimball was referring too.

As for your comments about decisions made behind closed doors and lies your frustration is noted. My consolation is in our omniscient Lord who will one day cry the truth from the rooftops. There is at least one prominent Catholic who has significantly lowered himself to unimaginable depths for reasons I know nothing about. “Leave him to heaven.”

 

[Rosalinda]

This letter, “Pro-life families aid Third World Kids” appeared in the LFP on the Letters to the Editor page by Daniellle Van Meppelen Scheppink from Mt.Brydges, Ontario, today, June 22. The contested letter he is responding to can be found on post #72 on page 1 of this thread.

"I am very disappointed with Robby Smink’s letter, ‘Save the children already suffering’ (June 8), in which he states that pro-life people’s “righteousness in protecting other women’s unwanted fetuses in our world rarely manifests itself when it comes to helping the millions of already existing unwanted children around the globe.”

This statement is inaccurate. I know many pro-life families that have adopted children from overseas, or care for special-needs children full time (my family and two aunts and their families and many I work with). In addition, my parents, brother and I have been on trips to schools, hospitals, and orphanages in Guatemala to help change the situations that Smink describes.

Many of my pro-life friends are presently using their vacation time and unpaid time to go on such trips as well.

Smink may be interested to know that those starving people he mentions are actually happier with the little they have and would not dream of having an abortion under the guise of choice. They are appalled that the government here not only condones such behaviour, but also pays for this. It is obviously not the pro-life people who are inconsiderate. Instead it is those who want abortion available so they don’t have to take responsibility
for their actions."

 

[Rosalinda]

“Outlawing Abortion Unfair to Victims” laments Pamala Cecchin in the LFP June 28.

"I read the letters to the editor daily and sometimes I both agree and disagree with the comments made. However, the comments made by Danielle Van Mepelen Scheppink in her letter, Pro-life families aid Third World kids (June 23), were ignorant of the real facts.

She refers to abortion and says that those who have them do so in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. This is incredible. She makes it sound as if people who have this procedure do so as if they were buying a pack of gum.

This is never an easy decision and more importantly, what about the people who didn’t have a choice?

She may say that everyone has a choice, but the latest statistics show that one in four children is molested or raped by someone they know, a family member or a friend. (These are American statistics, but you get the idea).

Do those women and girls have to take responsibility for an action that wasn’t theirs? The important fact to know is that when abortion is illegal it is illegal to everyone, including the 12-year-old girl who shouldn’t have to take responsibility for someone else’s actions."