National Campus Life Network

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

by Alana Beddoe

An Environics poll commissioned by Life Canada found that 95% of Canadians think palliative and hospice care should be a high (66%) or medium (29%) priority for the government. Only about a third of Canadians have good access to palliative care. Palliative care focuses on pain management, emotional and comfort care at the end of life.

Close to three-quarters (74%) of those polled were worried that if the law against euthanasia is changed a significant number of elderly and disabled persons would be euthanized without their consent.

More information can be found here: Canadians’ Attitudes Towards Euthanasia

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Check out this article on assisted suicide in the University of Ottawa’s English-language student newspaper, The Fulcrum: http://thefulcrum.ca/2011/11/assisting-the-suicidal/

Assisted suicide conveys a brutal message as to who our society really cares about. It tells the elderly, the weak, and those in pain that we are unwilling to foster their well being. Instead, we propose an easy alternative: Death. Easy for the rest of us, at least.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

by Kate Larson

Randy Alcorn’s ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments is a book I’d like to have on hand at all times. I think it should be required reading in high schools and in university ethics, journalism, public policy, and women’s studies classes. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Divided into sections by type of argument, it takes every common pro-choice statement or question and lays out all of the counter arguments. Alcorn doesn’t shrink from his subject matter, but his tone is calm and rational, not hectoring. He relies on a commendable variety of sources; the book contains 789 citations including both pro-life and pro-choice literature, secular media, congressional testimony, and personal conversations with former abortion providers. The last section of the book contains a variety of further resources – appeals to different groups of people affected by, supportive of, complicit in or working against abortion, a section on finding forgiveness after abortion, a list of pro-life resources, sections on chemical abortions and birth control, biblical passages and a bible study lesson on life issues, ways of giving practical help to the unborn and their mothers, ways of communicating the pro-life message, and a sermon and position statement on the sanctity of life that he delivered at his church. Alcorn is a former Protestant pastor and, now, a writer and the founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries. In the book, he makes clear his background, beliefs and pro-life activities. He augments some of his arguments with his own experiences, but never substitutes subjective arguments for factual ones.

I have only two caveats about the book, and they are hardly even that. First, being American, the book refers to American laws, statistics and resources, though I noticed one Canadian pro-life organization in the resource list. That takes nothing away from the usefulness of this book to Canadian pro-lifers, but it would be great to have a Canadian edition with a list of Canadian resources.

Second, the book is difficult to read all at once because the subject matter and some of the information can be depressing. Of course, as the introduction states, it is not meant to be read straight through, but rather to be used as a reference.

All things considered, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments is an excellent resource for everyone – those who may not have considered life issues at all, those who may have questions, and those who thought they had all the answers, whether pro-life or pro-choice.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

by James Richmond

I somewhat recently attended a debate hosted by uOttawa Students for Life in mid-November. At this debate, the pro-choice debater, Jovan Morales, posed an often used argument which presents abortion as a ‘harm-reduction’ solution. Essentially, this position proposes that without legalized abortion, women will seek ‘back-alley abortions’ in non-sterile environments where the possibility of infection and maternal mortality is much higher.

There are a number of issues with this argument, and I will briefly address two of them. The first is that I see this approach as merely a band-aid solution. Legalizing abortions to give women access to sterile facilities with skilled physicians does not address what led the women to seek abortion in the first place: Was it a boyfriend who does not wish to deal with the consequences of his actions? Parents who want to avoid family embarrassment? The terrible trauma of rape? The woman who does not want her life to be disrupted by having a child? A lack of support from family and friends? In these situations, I believe there is a cultural problem rather than a medical one. Western culture is self-centric in that we place utmost importance on our personal choices: What is it I want to do? How does this affect me? What about asking what exactly is at stake when it comes to abortion, and more precisely who? We know beyond a shadow of scientific doubt that the preborn are human beings and as such their lives must be protected along with their mothers’.

Furthermore, if the foundation of the argument is based on the health of the mother, institutionalized abortion is no guarantee of even a decrease in maternal mortality rates. A study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) titled “Trends in Maternal Mortality” discovered that from 1990 to 2008, after the legalization of abortion, the Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) of Canada increased by 94 percent (28) and the MMR of the United States increased 96 percent (32). Legalized abortion is clearly no panacea for women’s health.

The ‘harm-reduction’ argument is also used to push for abortion clinics in developing countries. The National Right to Life group published an article which discusses the myth proposed above by Mr. Morales. I encourage you to read the short document, “Why legalized abortion is not good for women’s health.”

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

by Nicole Pachla

Here we are, at the beginning of a new year. Some of us may have made a few resolutions to try to keep throughout the year…
I would like to encourage you to make one more resolution. It does not require a whole lot of time or energy, but it does requires some courage and conviction. It is the resolution of becoming a little more active in the pro-life movement. And by that, I do not mean putting all of your time and energy into the pro-life cause, but rather becoming more involved in little things and situations. For example, if the topic of abortion comes up in conversation, do not be afraid to share your point of view and be ready to defend it. If you have friends who are not pro-life, and again the topic of abortion arises, gently explain to them the ugliness of abortion and why it should never be an option. Please, do not let any opportunity to show the truth of abortion pass you by. We need to make everyone aware of its reality. Abortion happens every day. Just in Canada, approximately THREE HUNDRED (300) babies are killed PER DAY. That is incredible, terrifying, and very sad. So please, lend your voice to the unborn and help us defend them.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

[Picture: Sara Hall (NCLN Maritime Campus Coordinator) and Stacy Anderson (NCLN board member) with Amanda Magee and other students from the new club shortly after receiving status at the Student Union Meeting.]

In December we informed you that the University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) Students for Life had their application for club status denied.  (For more information, the press release can be found on our website here).  Now, we have the pleasure of informing you that the club was ratified last night at a Student Council meeting and the club now enjoys status and funding.

Club President, Amanda Magee, was present along with several other club members at the meeting.  The club had re-submitted their application prior to the meeting and Amanda was given an opportunity to make a brief presentation to the Councillors.  She also fielded several questions from Councillors before a motion was made to recognize the club.

Shane Westin, the club’s Vice-President, quickly questioned the difference between ‘recognition’ and ‘ratification’.  It was explained that ratification gave the club both status and funding but recognition, which would apply to religious or political clubs, would mean they would not receive funding.  Given that the club is neither political nor religious in nature, Mr. Westin questioned the Councillor’s motion and, after consulting policy, the motion was amended and the club was ratified.

NCLN was there to meet with the pro-life students beforehand and attend the Student Union meeting.  We’re pleased that the Student Union finally granted the club the rights they were due and we look forward to working with UNB Students for Life as they plan and host events this winter.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Student Union applies double standard to pro-life students at the University of New Brunswick (Fredericton)

Dec. 19, 2011. Fredericton, New Brunswick:  Pro-life students at the University of New Brunswick’s (UNB) Fredericton campus were shocked last week to learn from their student newspaper, The Brunswickan, that their club would not be recognized by the Student Union due to a “lack of information”.

“The whole situation has been incredibly frustrating,” says Amanda Magee, the President of UNB Students for Life.  “We have given the Student Union information.  We have offered to be present to answer questions.”

UNB Students for Life applied for club status in October, not anticipating any issues given that a pro-life club is active at the UNB Saint John campus and had also existed at the Fredericton campus only a few years previous.  When their contact on council, Andrew Martel, requested additional information from the club, they replied, ensuring that the information would be received before the next Council meeting on November 20th.  Despite this, Andrew Martel stated at the meeting, according to the Nov. 20th minutes, that he did not receive any information from the club.

“We’ve had to rely on the student newspaper and the minutes of the meetings to piece things together,” adds Magee.  “And the Dec. 4th minutes still aren’t available so we’re not entirely sure what happened.”

What is clear is that the pro-life nature of the club has some Councillors concerned.  Some Councillors said that club would be “contentious” and “inviting debate”.  Others, such as Jordan Thompson, the President of the Council, stated that, “the Student Union is not the moral police. As long as the clubs and societies are functioning with certain conduct, it is not our prerogative to judge them on our certain beliefs.”

“It’s a double standard,” comments Rebecca Richmond, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network.  “Simply browse through the listing of clubs on campus and you’ll find clubs with controversial positions.  The Council has asked for additional information; what they need is information concerning what the role of a student union is and is not.  Determining which views are accepted and which are discriminated against is not part of their mandate.”

UNB Students for Life will be addressing the issue at the next Council meeting in January.

“We have a right to be on campus,” asserts Magee.  “Issues like abortion should be discussed and debated.  Resources on positive alternatives should be promoted.  All we want is the same rights as other clubs so we can do these things on campus.”

For more information, contact Amanda Magee, UNB Students for Life President, 506 852 4399.

For additional comment, contact Rebecca Richmond, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network, 416 388 0461 (office), 416 388 0461 (cell).

National Campus Life Network is a national pro-life organization that exists to educate, network and support pro-life post-secondary students across Canada.

-30-

Further Information

Prepared December 18^th, 2011

• Oct. 14^th: University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) Students for Life submitted their application for club status to the Student Union. The application complied with the clubs and societies policy.
• Nov. 6^th: Student Union council members begin deliberations on whether or not to grant status to the club (Minutes are available online at http://www.unbsu.ca/content/240480 Discussions concerning the club begin on page 15).
• Concerned that the club could be “controversial”, “touchy” and “negative”, the council resolved to ask for additional information and defer the decision until the next meeting.
• Nov. 14^th: The club receives a request for additional information from Andrew Martel and replied on Nov. 18^th.
• Nov. 20^th: Student Union councillors resume debate concerning the club (see minutes at http://www.unbsu.ca/content/240480, starting on pg 14).
  • Andrew Martel, the Vice-President Finance and Operations, stated that he contacted the club for more information and did not hear back from them.
  • Councillors raised objections to the club as it would be a “single issue” club with “political will or intention” (Councillor Gormal-Asal, pg 14), “contentious” and “inviting debate” (Gorman-Asal, pg 15), and potentially disseminating “misinformation” for the pregnancy centre (Glenwright, pg 15).  Other council members stated that the student union should not be a “morality police” (Chamberlain-Boyle, pg 14, and Thompson, pg 15).
  • The issue was deferred until more information about the club was presented.
• Nov. 23^rd: An article in The Brunswickan reports on the debate.  http://thebruns.ca/articles/49984 This is the first the club has heard of the situation.
• Nov. 24^th: The club emailed Andrew Martel, expressing their concern with the manner in which their application was being debated and including additional information on the club. A meeting with the Student Union was requested.
• Nov. 28^th:  Andrew Martel responded by email.  He stated he would provide the responses to the Council that Sunday and suggested that the club attend the meeting so as to answer questions.  The club immediately replied, requesting information on how to find the meeting.  A follow-up email was also sent shortly thereafter, but no answer was received.  As such, no members of the club attended the meeting.
• December 4^th student union meeting. (Minutes for the Dec. 4^th meeting are not yet online.)
• Dec. 5^th: Andrew Martel contacted the club by email, requesting further information on what groups and centres the club would be referring students to for help with unplanned pregnancies or post-abortion counselling. The club replied on the same day with additional details and links to the centres’ websites.
• Dec. 7^th: An article in The Brunswickan reported that the club had been denied status at the Dec. 4 meeting, citing “insufficient information from the club.”  In the article, Andrew Martel stated that if more information from the club is received, he will bring it forward.  The information that is needed  is “where the resources are coming from and where they will be directing students.”  http://thebruns.ca/articles/50519
• Dec. 14^th: An email is received from Andrew Martel, informing the group that their information was submitted too late for the last meeting (although additional information had been provided on Nov. 28^th, a week before the Dec. 4^th meeting).  He will bring forward information from the Dec. 5^th email at a January meeting.

Update:  Media Coverage of the Situation

LifeSiteNews.com:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u-new-brunswick-student-union-denies-club-status-to-pro-life-students

Pro-Woman Pro-Life: http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2011/12/19/bumpy-beginnings/

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Come one, come all this Thursday, Dec. 8, starting at 6:30 p.m. for an evening of fun, food, games, and awesome people! Bring a treat to share and a gift for a mother and/or baby in need! If you don’t know what to get, here is a list of suggestions:

- baby clothes (birth to 24 months)
- diaper bags
- diapers
- maternity clothes
- bottles
- soothers
- baby toiletries (shampoo, soap, baby powder, zinc cream, brush, face cloths, towels, etc.)
- baby blankets

All items are being donated to First Place Options.

Please let us know if you are coming and what you are bringing for food by emailing uottawastudentsforlife@gmail.com (Event’s address will be provided in reply.) Come and celebrate life and Christmas!

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

This post was written for Youth Protecting Youth by ypyvicepresident. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

I am a clump of cells. I am tissue. I happen to be a collection of cells that comprises an entire individual of the human species. And you know what? So is an embryo. From the moment of fertilization, we are each human individuals. This is a biological fact.

I am a product of conception. So are you. Had our respective parents not conceived us, we would never have existed. Because we were conceived, we began to grow and develop, were born, and continue to grow and develop as we move throughout our lives.

I was once the contents of my mother’s uterus. But saying where someone or something is located doesn’t tell you who or what it is. The contents of my backpack might be a change of clothes, books for school, or any number of other things. We are humans regardless of where we are.

I am pro-life, but that doesn’t mean I’m against the termination of pregnancies. After all, it’s unnatural to be pregnant permanently. Ideally, a pregnancy terminates after about nine months with the birth of a healthy baby. We recognize that some children are born prematurely or with health problems, and that while this may cause challenges for them and their families, it in no way makes them any less human than you or I. Some pregnancies terminate in miscarriage – a tragic but natural occurrence. The only pregnancy terminations I oppose are those that involve the direct, intentional killing of the unborn child.

Calling the unborn “clumps of cells”, “blobs of tissue”, “products of conception”, or “uterine contents” does not adequately explain what they are. What they are is human beings at early stages of development. In simple terms, they are very little babies. But it’s easier to talk about terminating a pregnancy than to think about ending the life of a baby. I want to live in a society where we don’t need euphemisms for “baby.”

(Inspired by this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOm41wZN9C4)

Read the comments at the Youth Protecting Youth website.