Stephanie Gray

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is anti-abortion, so why are we still killing babies?

Stephanie Gray
Stephanie Gray
Image

June 14, 2012 (Unmaskingchoice.ca) - With the arrival of The New Abortion Caravan in Winnipeg, Manitoba, home of the construction site for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the time is now to demand that the museum let the pre-born children in.  With over 3 million of our country’s most innocent slaughtered, supported by our tax dollars, and through all 9 months of pregnancy, Canada is guilty of its own human rights violation.  And what’s bewildering is how we even got here when our country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unequivocally anti-abortion.

Most prominently, Section 7 guarantees “everyone” the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Who falls under the category “everyone”?  Considering that killing a dog, while perhaps outrageous, isn’t a Charter violation, but killing a toddler is, it seems reasonable to deduce that “everyone” refers to all members of the human family. After all, that’s how the United Nations defines everyone in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

To exclude some members of the human family from basic rights like the right to life, is to permit discrimination, thus violating Section 15 of the Charter as well: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination…based on…age.”

To deprive the pre-born their right to life because they are inside of, and dependent on, their mothers’ bodies, or because they may not feel pain, or because they cannot think and reason, is to discriminate against them based on age.  After all, the pre-born are where they are because, in our species, at that age, that’s where you should be.  They are as dependent as they are because, in our species, at that age, you are dependent on your mother’s body.  They have a low level of development because, in our species, at that age, that’s the developmental level you should be at.

Why should those of us who are older be allowed to kill those who are younger?

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

The Charter not only condemns such age-based discrimination, but it stipulates in Section 12 that “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”  Last time I checked, decapitation, dismemberment, and disembowelment were cruel and unusual treatment.

But perhaps all of this is moot—if the pre-born aren’t human beings, then none of this applies. So the question is, are the pre-born members of the human family? As long as we aren’t going to call into question the humanity of a pregnant woman or her male partner, it is illogical to call into question the humanity of their offspring. After all, how can two members of one species produce anyone but someone of their same species?

And yet, there is no denying that our Criminal Code, in section 223, says, “A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”

If that is true, then it would follow that an abortion at 8 months and 29 days would not be a Charter violation of the pre-born’s right to life.  Yet most, if not all, would be instinctively outraged that merely the location of that almost-born child could justify her homicide. Indeed, it seems intuitive that if we want to determine what something is, we do not ask where it is, but rather, we ask what its parents are. 

Women and men are human beings; thus, the pre-born are human beings.  At fertilization the pre-born are growing; thus, they are alive.  Sperm and egg are human parts, but at fertilization the zygote is a whole human.  No adult can claim ever having once been a sperm or egg, but all adults can claim having once been a teenager, pre-teen, young child, toddler, infant, fetus, and embryo — all of which are mere labels for an age-range.

Now what of the argument that the Charter supports abortion on the grounds of a woman’s right to liberty?  Well, the Charter clearly stipulates that those rights are not to be deprived of except “in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Core to principles of fundamental justice is that it is wrong to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being. Further, we would never grant a man license to beat his partner on grounds that he is exercising his liberty — for we may not end, or even hurt, an innocent person’s life on grounds that we were exercising our liberty.  This is echoed in Section 26 which says, “The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.  The concept of being “free to kill the innocent” does not exist in human rights doctrines.

In one last feeble attempt, some may claim that to deprive a woman of abortion is to violate Section 15 and discriminate against her based on sex. But for that to apply, it would mean she be denied abortion because she is female.  But that is not correct. A woman would not be denied an abortion because of what she is, but rather, a woman would be denied an abortion because of what abortion is — an act of violence which kills a human being, thus violating that human’s Charter right to life.

As NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said only a few months ago on the anniversary of our Charter, “Today the Charter stands as an example the world over. It reminds us that respect for basic human rights is a vital part of every modern society, and that any threat to these rights constitutes a threat to society as a whole.”

Indeed, it’s time to live up to the language of the Charter and ban abortion.

Reprinted with permission from Unmaskingchoice.ca

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

State Rep who compared Planned Parenthood with ISIS moves to bar dismemberment abortions

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image
State Representative Isaac Latterell, R-Sioux Falls

PIERRE, SD, February 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The state representative who said that Planned Parenthood beheads human beings just like ISIS is calling for the state Senate to ban all forms of dismemberment abortion.

“Planned Parenthood is worse than ISIS,” said State Representative Isaac Latterell, R-Sioux Falls said when introducing H.B. 1230, the Preborn Infant Beheading Ban of 2015. The bill would make it a felony for an abortionist to behead an unborn child as part of an abortion procedure within the state limits.

“There are certain revolting methods of execution, such as beheading, that no state would ever permit, even against murderers who use this method on their victims,” Rep. Latterell said.

The House Health and Human Services Committee passed the bill last week by a 11-2 vote.

But not everyone was happy with the bill and the publicity it drew. (The same committee had killed a dismemberment and decapitation abortion ban last year.)

State Rep. Burt Tulson, R-Lake Norden, amended the beheading law to simply read, “The State of South Dakota recognizes the sanctity of human life.”

The full House passed the amended form of his bill by 65-3 on Thursday, February 19.

Rep. Latterell is now asking the state Senate to revise the bill again – to go beyond beheading and bar all forms of dismemberment of the unborn.

“I knew beheading was an abhorrent technique reserved for the likes of ISIS terrorists, but I did not fully appreciate how much pain the fetal dismemberment that takes place during dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions causes the baby,” Latterell told LifeSiteNews. “I am confident when the Senate committee is finished with its hearing, Planned Parenthood's lies will be exposed. I look forward to banning dismemberment abortion once and for all.”

“Dismemberment abortion kills a baby by tearing her apart limb from limb,” said Daniel Woodard, a Columbus School of Law student who testified for the bill.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Introducing such a bill would put South Dakota in the mainstream of the national pro-life movement. The National Right to Life Committee has made banning dismemberment abortions a national focus. The same day that the South Dakota House passed Latterell's bill, the Kansas state Senate passed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

Other states, including Oklahoma and Missouri, have introduced legislation to end the most common form of second-trimester abortion, as well.

The amended H.B. 1230 had its first reading in the state Senate on Friday.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

, ,

Detaching ‘pastoral practice’ from Catholic doctrine is a ‘dangerous schizophrenic pathology’: Vatican cardinal

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, February 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Another highly placed Vatican Cardinal has corrected the “progressivist” proposal to offer Holy Communion to Catholics who have been divorced and remarried or who are in other “irregular” sexual unions. The highly respected Cardinal Robert Sarah, recently appointed to the office overseeing the Church’s liturgical practices, says that attempting to detach Catholic teaching from “pastoral practice” is a form of “heresy.”

“The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice – which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions – is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology,” Cardinal Sarah said.

“The African Church will strongly oppose any rebellion against the teaching of Jesus and the Magisterium,” he added.

The Guinean cardinal is the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, but until recently was serving as the head of Cor Unum, the office overseeing the Church’s charitable activities. In his former job, given by Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah was spearheading efforts at reforming the umbrella organization, Caritas Internationalis, as it brought its policies into line with Catholic moral teaching, particularly on contraception and abortion.

The cardinal made the remarks in a book of interviews to be published this week by the French language press, Fayard. Titled “Dieu ou rien” (God or Nothing), the book is described as “frank personal thoughts” on the cardinal’s life, including on “the ideological neo-colonialism in Africa exercised by the decadent West.”

On the various crises of the African continent, he said, “I want to strongly condemn a desire to impose false values ​​using political and financial arguments.” 

He said that in some African countries, “ministries dedicated to gender theory” have been created in order to legitimize the ideology. “These policies are all the more hideous inasmuch as the majority of the African population is defenseless, thanks to the fanatical Western ideologues,” Cardinal Sarah said. 

In the book the cardinal also addresses euthanasia, calling it “the most acute marker of a society without God,” and “subhuman.” But he adds that he has seen an “awakening of consciences,” particularly among younger people in North America who want to overcome “the culture of death.” 

“God was not asleep, he is really with those who defend life!”

Since the “suggestion” on Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, made at last year’s consistory, and pushed hard at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in October, by the German Walter Cardinal Kasper and his followers, the Catholic Church is increasingly being shown to be deeply divided at the highest levels and on some of the Church’s most fundamental and definitive issues. While it was frequently commented that the African bishops were on the whole strongly opposed to the Kasper Proposal, the West’s view of the “African Church” as a conservative monolith has been refuted. At least one African bishop has indicated that he outright supports Kasper’s proposal, repeating much of the rhetoric of the Kasper supporters in and out of the Vatican.

Gabriel Palmer Buckle, the archbishop of Accra in Ghana, and one of the bishops chosen to attend the next Synod in October, is quoted by long-time American Vaticanist John Allen saying that he is ready “to vote yes” on allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion.

John Allen wrote that the Ghanian archbishop “supports allowing local bishops to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, and also believes that’s the result Pope Francis wants from the October summit.”

“When a person comes to me, I think I should be able to sit with him or her, or with the family, to find out what the situation is and to give solutions to individual cases without making a sweeping statement,” Palmer-Buckle said.

“It’s not a matter of issuing a new law,” he said. “As for the doctrine [on marriage], I don’t think the Church will change. It’s a question of how we help individuals.”

He added also that the “case-by-case” approach is favored by Pope Francis. “The truth of the matter is that the Holy Father is pushing towards that, when he talks about collegiality,” he said.

The archbishop echoed the phrases and jargon – such as the invocation of “gradualism” and “accompaniment” – used by both the Vatican and Kasper’s supporters during and immediately following the 2014 Synod.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“The Holy Father has made it clear that the Church’s doctrine [that marriage is always indissoluble] remains the perfection point, the point of arrival, but we are all wounded,” Palmer-Buckle said. “That’s why Christ came, for the sick, the wounded, the needy.”

“If we look at our own pastoral challenges, there must be room to listen and to see how we can pastorally accompany whoever wants to belong more and more to Christ.”

He also reiterated Kasper’s own statement that the proposal is not intended to change Church teaching: “It’s not a matter of issuing a new law…As for the doctrine [on marriage], I don’t think the Church will change. It’s a question of how we help individuals.”

Others have strongly refuted this thesis, including high-level cardinals, who have said that a change in the practice would simply make the doctrine irrelevant to most Catholics.

With the next session of the Synod still eight months in the future, the sides in the argument are rapidly forming. A few days ago, US Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, joined the growing chorus of opposition, saying, “Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral and we cannot carry out something else and call it pastoral, if it doesn’t embody the truth.”

“Certain doctrines are embodied in certain practices and even if you don’t change the doctrine in writing, in a written document, if you change the practice you have changed what the previous practice embodied.”

In January, another Vatican curial official, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, gave a lecture in Germany strongly refuting the underlying theory of the Kasper Proposal. With Cardinal Sarah, Piacenza explained that it is incoherent to suggest that the Church’s “pastoral practice” could possibly be placed in opposition to her doctrine.

Speaking to a group of priests and seminarians, Cardinal Piacenza said, “When in Christianity mercy and truth are presented as antagonistic, or at least as contradictory, it is always the result of a partial perception.”

“It is hardly conceivable that there could be such a strong emphasis on mercy to the detriment of truth. Or, its opposite, a strong emphasis on truth to the detriment of mercy.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Eric Metaxas

, , ,

What Uncle Sam giveth, he can taketh away: Our rights are from God, not government

Eric Metaxas
By Eric Metaxas

February 23, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- During a recent appearance on CNN, Roy Moore, the chief judge of Alabama’s Supreme Court, debated the issue of same-sex marriage with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, the son of the late New York governor Mario Cuomo and the brother of New York’s current governor, Andrew Cuomo.

During the discussion, Moore said that “Our rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, do not come from the Constitution. They come from God. That’s clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.” Cuomo then responded “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.”

Cuomo added that the idea of God-given rights is “your faith [and] my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

I can’t help but wonder which country Cuomo is referring to. After all, the Declaration of Independence, by way of justifying the enormous steps the Founding Fathers were about to take, states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”

These words, which previous generations of American school children were made to memorize, set forth an order that is 180 degrees from that suggested by Cuomo: first comes the Creator, who then endows his creatures with “certain unalienable rights,” and then the creatures form governments to “secure those rights.”

In essence, Cuomo is resorting to a kind of legal positivism, that is, the idea that “law is a matter of what has been posited,” something “ordered, decided, practiced, [or] tolerated,” and is not based on any deeper truth.

But that approach has serious flaws—as our own history bears out. In the run-up to the Civil War, for example, defenders of slavery appealed to the text of the Constitution, which permitted slavery without mentioning it by name. Opponents of slavery, or at least those against its spread into the territories, such as Lincoln, appealed to the Declaration of Independence and its ideas about God-given rights.

Sticking to man-given rights and appealing to “collective agreement and compromise” as Cuomo insists upon doing, would not have ended slavery.

However, if our nation’s leaders agree with Cuomo that the rights we possess are those the government has deined to give us, that would go a long way to explaining the erosion of religious liberty we are witnessing in the U. S. After all, the same government that can create a right to abortion and same-sex marriage can also take away the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association. This may yield the results folks like Cuomo want, but it undermines the very foundation of human rights that we all claim to hold dear.

And that is really what’s at stake. Years ago on this program, Chuck Colson said that human rights are “based on our most fundamental beliefs about humans being created in the image of God.” Our “rights are not conferred by government, and so they cannot be denied by government.” It was this belief that led Chuck to draft the Manhattan Declaration in defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom.

More than half a million Americans have signed the Manhattan Declaration. So if you have not, or if you haven’t even read this vitally important defense of our rights and freedom, please come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and I’ll link you to it.

Chris Cuomo was right about one thing: God-given rights are what our faith teaches. If that’s no longer true about “our country,” Heaven help us all.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook