Tag Archives: Abortion

News

Students arrested for pro-life demonstration at Carleton University

5 Comments
Armed policeman arrests peaceful pro-life student
Armed policeman handcuffs peaceful pro-life student

UPDATE: Video is here.

Story here in the Ottawa Citizen.

Full story:

Police arrested five anti-abortion activists Monday at Carleton University after the group attempted to display large posters that compared abortion to genocide.

Ruth Lobo, a fourth-year Carleton student, said she and four others were arrested by Ottawa police at around 9 a.m. Monday. Three were Carleton students and the fourth was from Queen’s University.

According to Lobo, the five students were handcuffed, loaded into a police van and taken to the campus security office where they were each charged with two offences under the Trespass Act and fined about $130 each.

The group had asked Carleton for a spot on campus to hold the controversial Genocide Awareness Project, which features six large graphic images that compare the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide to abortion.

The university said the display is considered disturbing and offensive to some and offered the group space in Porter Hall, which Lobo called, “an isolated hall that no one ever really goes to.”

Unsatisfied with the space offered by Carleton, Lobo said the group arrived on campus Monday at 9 a.m. to set up in the Tory Quad, an outside square at the centre of campus bordered by the library, administration building and several other buildings.

A university spokesman confirmed the arrests and noted the group were on several occasions offered another place on campus to set up their display.

“In every instance, the students indicated they would not respect the university’s request and would proceed with its exhibit in the Tory Quad,” said Jason McDonald in a written statement.

Lobo said the campus’ anti-abortion group Carleton Lifeline wanted to bring the Genocide Awareness Project to Ottawa to challenge students’ views on abortion in an educational way.

Similar protests have been held on other university campuses across the country, including the University of Calgary.

From the National Post.

Full story:

Four students were arrested this morning by Ottawa police for putting up a graphic anti-abortion display on the main quadrangle of Carleton University.

The students, all members of a pro-life group called Carleton Lifeline, applied for permission to put up the display two months ago but were turned down by the university.

The school said it did not allow large displays in the quadrangle and also cited the offensiveness of the photos.

The students were offered a room in which the photos of bloody fetuses could be shown and a table in the main university centre to invite fellow students to the display.

However, Ruth Lobo, one of the students arrested, said putting up the display was a matter of free speech and a personal obligation to “tell the truth about abortion.”

The four Carleton students have been charged with trespassing. A fifth man from Queen’s University was also charged.

Police arresting students for peaceful demonstrations on a university campus. This is Canada’s record on free speech rights.

Keep in mind that these students are registered for classes, so how can they be trespassing if they supposed to be there? And this censorship of their views is being done with the tax money paid into the university system by their parents. Their parents also pay for the left-wing student government and the left-wing clubs who are never arrested for taking stands on controversial issues. Can you imagine being a parent and being forced to pay people who arrest and censor your own children and lead them away in handcuffs just for exercising their right to free speech?

The problem here is that leftists believe that mere disagreement with their left-wing views is enough to incite violence against them, poor little victims as they are. Left-wingers, it is assumed, are not capable of violence, so left wing speech doesn’t have to be censored. That’s how leftists feel – if you disagree with them, you need to be arrested because you’re a crazy violent person. They call that tolerance and open-mindedness, by the way.

Keep in mind that we see a lot more left-wing violence, not the least of which is 45 million babies killed since abortion became legal in the USA. And that’s not even counting the MILLIONS of lives snuffed out by the DDT ban.

Although pro-life demonstrations are meant to attract attention and to encourage 1-on-1 debate, leftists actually advocate violence against those who disagree with them. On the other hand, abortionists seem to like to attack pro-lifers. Sometimes by shooting them, sometimes by hitting them with SUVs, and this week they are pulling guns on them.

Pro-lifers, just want to use visual aids to show what abortion is to get a conversation started. But left-wingers are a lot worse – they want to use videos to actually incite violence against people who disagree with them.

Watch this video from the global warming eco-fascists and see for yourself. (H/T ECM)

Oh, nothing unusual about blowing up people who don’t believe in global warming, right? Not at all – that’s tolerance and diversity to leftists. (I sent that video to a secular humanist and he thought it was funny to blow up people who doubt global warming. He laughed!)

And even worse than that, we actually DO have evidence that eco-fascist nuts watch propaganda videos like the one above and then start running around with guns trying to “save the planet” by committing crimes. But are environmentalists arrested for demonstrating on campus, and then put in jail? Of course not. Because they are LEFTISTS. Leftists advocate for big government, and big government means more money for universities. It’s all about the money.

If you want to know how far these Canadian censors are willing to go, then click here and prepare to be horrified.

Take action!

If you do not approve of fascism on Canadian university campuses, please click here to send a message to the fascist university administrators at Carleton University. Notice how the Chancellor is connected to the left-wing Liberal party, which is responsible for the Human Rights Commissions which censor the free speech of Canadians like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. The Liberal party favors nationalism and socialism. In fact, you might even call them the Nationalism Socialism party. The Liberal party is basically similar to the Democrat party in the United States.

Related posts

News

Feminism’s opposition to motherhood makes children less moral

17 Comments

Are you appalled by the way that children are behaving these days? Blame feminism. (H/T Ruth Blog)

Excerpt:

Many of today’s kids seem to be flunking the daily moral tests of life.

James, a teacher-friend of mine, lamented recently how “morally challenged” his high school students seem to be. “They don’t think twice about lying or slamming someone’s reputation. Cheating on tests is no big deal. They only worry if they’ll get caught.”

Recent headlines and the latest studies paint a dismal picture of cheating, bullying, sexual experimentation, on-line exhibitionism and “cyber-stalking.” College students show declining levels of empathy—a quality viewed as the foundation of ethical behavior. And the problems start early. A quick snapshot of the playground culture captures younger children who bully their way to the top of the slide or push past a crying child to reach the swings first, classic examples of self-absorption and lack of compassion.

What—or who—is to blame?

Here’s the author’s answer, which I agree with:

But new research from Notre Dame Professor Darcia Narvaez suggests that current parenting practices are the more likely culprit. The “moral sense” of children—now and in times past–hinges on whether they learn empathy and concern for others, particularly in the early years of life. ““Our work shows that the roots of moral functioning form early in life, in infancy, and depend on the affective quality of family and community support.” And the problem, according to her research, is that today’s child-rearing practices make that increasingly difficult. The result: “The quality of our cultural moral fiber is diminishing.”

The specific problems with childrearing today might be summed up by what’s missing: time together, physical closeness, and adult responsiveness. In particular, Narvaez contrasts the “emotionally suboptimal day care facilities with little individualized, responsive care” to the optimal situation that keeps children close to mom, encourages parental responsiveness to infant needs, and offers parents and children strong support from extended family and the community.

She cites a specific set of “ancestral” practices that cultivate strong family bonds—and consequently support moral development, particularly compassion and concern for others. These include:

  • Plenty of positive touch (cuddling, carrying, etc.)
  • Parental responsiveness to the child’s needs.
  • Extended breastfeeding (2-5 years)
  • Natural child-birth (which provides a hormonal boost aiding newborn care)
  • Lots of unstructured playtime, with children of varied ages.
  • The presence of additional adults (typically dads and grandmothers) to love, care for, and guide the child. Mom is not alone.

A child’s capacity for morality is grounded on the ability to feel empathy for others. And capacity is built up in the first two years of the child’s life as it bonds to its mother. But what if the mother isn’t there because she is out working? (Either because taxes are too high for just the man to work, or because there is no man in the home at all)

Basically, feminists want women to act like men, and that means that they must work. The way that feminists go about making women work when they would rather stay home is by passing policies that undermine traditional marriage. Things like increased sexual education, no-fault divorce, legalizing prostitution, anti-male divorce courts, replacing men with social programs, increased social programs to replace fathers, higher taxes to force women to work, taxpayer-funded contraceptives, taxpayer-funded abortion, taxpayer-funded IVF,  same-sex marriage, domestic violence fears, rape fears, abuse fears, etc. Anything to get women to think that men are unreliable, that marriage is impossible and that women have to have jobs in order to be full members of society.

The result is children who don’t develop a conscience. Nowhere is this more apparent than in single mother homes, where the generous welfare benefits that left-wing parties provide allow women to have sex with anyone they want without caring about what kind of father and husband the man they have sex with would be. If women don’t have to care about finding a man who can provide, and if the government provides day care, health care and everything else that a man provides, then all the incentives are there for the woman to let the state raise her child. It’s not the man’s job to support her while she raises the children – it’s the states job to raise children. Her job is to work like a man, and pay the state to raise her children for her. Blech!

Polemics

MUST-READ: Only personally opposed to abortion?

24 Comments
Unborn baby scheming about International Life Chain Sunday
Unborn baby scheming about International Life Chain Sunday

The following is a guest post from commenter Mary to commemorate International Life Chain Sunday. Mary urges all of my readers to take this opportunity to stand up for the pre-born.

In my discussions with people on the topic of abortion, I frequently come across people (including many Christians) who claim to be “personally opposed” to abortion (or words to that effect), but who don’t think that it should be illegal. They believe in “a woman’s right to choose”. This all sounds very fine and magnanimous, couched as it is in the language of generosity, but an analysis of the reasoning behind it shows it to be seriously flawed.

Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons:

  1. Taking of innocent human life without morally sufficient reason should be illegal. Where the rationale comes from for believing this basic premise is another topic, but it is agreed on by all reasonable people – theists and atheists alike. (A morally sufficient reason would be something that saves another innocent human life.)
  2. The pre-born child is human. This is a scientific fact.
  3. The pre-born child is alive. This is a scientific fact.
  4. The pre-born child has committed no crime and can therefore be considered legally innocent.
  5. Taking the life of the pre-born child is to take an innocent, human life.
  6. Taking the life of a pre-born child should be illegal.

Abortion should be illegal for the same reason that murdering a newborn or a 2 year old is illegal. We don’t give women the “right to choose” to kill their newborns and for the same reason we should not give them the “right to choose” to kill their pre-born children either. The only case where we would consider it acceptable to take the life of a newborn would be where it was absolutely necessary to save the life of another innocent human being. The same should be true in the case of a pre-born child. We should give equal value to human lives and value life above the right to comfort and convenience.

Our entire legal system is based on the fact that there are certain limits to choice. If the right to choose were applied across the board we’d have to scrap every law in the books. Laws exist to limit choices that are damaging to others.

Legalized abortion is unfair discrimination of the worst kind on the basis of age and location. The right to life of the pre-born is a human right that should be fought for with passion and integrity. If we do not fight for this right we will be remembered in the same way as those who have failed to stand up for the rights of the oppressed in other areas.

Will we be like German citizens during the Nazi regime who failed to stand up for the rights of Jews, despite being “personally opposed” to Nazism? Will we be like those who failed to stand up for the right to freedom of those oppressed by slavery and Apartheid, despite being “personally opposed” to the same? Or will we be like Dietrich Bonheoffer and William Wilberforce who went beyond personal aversion, even though they weren’t members of the oppressed group, who spoke against oppression and who stood up for what was right, in the face of opposition.

I would like to end with two very apt quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King:

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter