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 Dante De Luca

Today’s story is about a woman named Rose Siggins; I am sure many of you are familiar with her story. Siggins was born with a medical condition called sacral agenesis, which means that she is missing the lower part of her spinal column. Her useless legs were amputated when she was a child in order to increase her mobility. Despite all this, she has lived a full and fairly normal life. She appeared in the 2005 documentary The Woman with Half a Body by the British Channel 5 in their series Extraordinary People and in the documentary Born Different: Unbelievable Medical Conditions on E! Entertainment Television in 2010.

What is all this doing on our pro-life blog, you ask? Well, not only is Siggins remarkable for the many obstacles she’s overcome due to her medical condition, but she is also a shining example of a woman who chose life despite overwhelming circumstances:

 ”Two years into their relationship, Rose discovered that she was pregnant. Rose’s pregnancy was extraordinary and ground-breaking, no-one with Sacral Agenesis had ever given birth. The only doctor who didn’t advise Rose to have an abortion was Dr. Wilson who says “This couple have committed themselves to a pregnancy and she is, basically, laying her life on the line because nobody knows what this means, no-one has lived this experience before. With the first counselling with Rose and David I was very specific and told them that they have to know that if they move forward with this that she could die.” The main concerns were with her lungs being compressed, as the baby was likely to grow up the way because of her short stature. The other concern was how she would tolerate a caesarean delivery, because the baby was lying transversely she would have to be opened across the top, a true 19th century caesarean delivery. Rose told her mum that if there were any complications and there was a choice between her life and the baby’s, she should choose the baby.”

For the rest of her story, I present you with this article: part one and part two. You can also watch what I think is the Channel 5 documentary The Woman with Half a Body here.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

Carleton Lifeline will appear in court tomorrow as the University attempts to quash their lawsuit, claiming it is “frivolous”.  The press release can be viewed here.

LifeSiteNews.com covered this development in the story here.

Ruth Lobo, the former president of Carleton Lifeline, appearened on Sun News today to discuss the arrests and free speech on campus.   The video clip can be seen here.

This post was written for Carleton Lifeline by jamesbshaw. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

OTTAWA,ON. In the case of Lobo et. al. v. Carleton University et. al, Carleton University has brought for a Motion to Strike Carleton Lifeline’s Statement of Claim. The lawsuit followed closely on the heels of Carleton University having Ottawa City Police arrest its students for trespass when they tried to set up a pro-life display last October.

“This is an important case for freedom of expression on campus.” said Albertos Polizogopoulos, legal counsel for Lifeline.” Recently there has occurred many other cases where university students have had their voices silenced.”

In February 2011, Ruth Lobo and Nicholas McLeod, two members of Carleton Lifeline, the pro life club at Carleton University, commenced an action against Carleton University following the University’s attempt to censor them.

In April, Carleton University responded to Lifeline’s Statement of Claim with a Motion to Strike it on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

Carleton Lifeline disagrees and will continue to defend their right to freedom of expression vigorously.

If the University is successful in their Motion, Carleton Lifeline’s Statement of Claim will be struck, thereby ending this lawsuit.

The Motion to Strike will be heard in court on June 16, 2011 at 10:00 am. The hearing will be held at 161 Elgin Street it Ottawa, Ontario and is open to the public.

For more information please contact Carleton Lifeline’s legal counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos: 613-241-2701 – albertos@vdg.ca.
Mr. Polizogopoulos will also be available for comment after the hearing.

To view footage of Carleton Lifeline’s arrest and for other information, please visit: www.carletonlifeline.wordpress.com

-30-

Read the comments at the Carleton Lifeline website.

This post was written for Carleton Lifeline by jamesbshaw. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Plaintiffs’ Factum

Read the comments at the Carleton Lifeline website.

This post was written for Carleton Lifeline by jamesbshaw. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Defendant’s Factum

Read the comments at the Carleton Lifeline website.

This post was written for Carleton Lifeline by jamesbshaw. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Defendants’ Notice of Motion

Read the comments at the Carleton Lifeline website.

This post was written for Carleton Lifeline by jamesbshaw. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Read the comments at the Carleton Lifeline website.

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by Michael Hayes. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Liveaction.org is running a series of pro-life graphics. This one highlights very nicely the huge gap between common sense and the pro-choice argument that it’s not a baby.

Check it out…

Read the comments at the University of Toronto 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 Paul T

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

Ah, freedom of speech. I was glad to have it at the March for Life, on May 12, and glad to see it used well. I saw many positive things at the march, including a crowd of 15,000, according to reports, a toddler serenely holding a “We Choose Life” sign as big as he was, and people gathered on sidewalks and at the windows of office buildings looking on and sometimes waving at us as the march went by. I hadn’t noticed the latter in previous years and it seemed encouraging. In fact, the whole event was very encouraging, as was the accurate and fairly positive, though not front-page, coverage it received the next day in the Ottawa Citizen. I also saw something that set me thinking about freedom and speech. There was a small pro-choice contingent on the Hill this year, and among the usual slogans, someone was holding a sign saying “I Hate Life.” I don’t know whether it was meant to be a joke, a personal cry for help, or just an attempt to attract attention, but it struck me. It struck me then as tasteless or sad or callous, depending on his intention, but it strikes me now as being the only pro-choice sign I noticed that actually addressed what the day was supposed to be about – life.

Common slogans such as “My Body, My Choice” or “A Woman’s Right to Choose,” which were the types of things I saw on pro-choice signs at the march, don’t make sense when taken at face value. Making choices is a constant in our lives. No one needs to argue for the ability to make any kind of choice because as humans we naturally are able to choose to do whatever we want to do. There are always consequences or outside pressures which make us more or less likely to choose one thing over another, but our actual ability to choose is not under threat. By the same token, the ability to make choices does not need to be enshrined as a right because it is already inalienable. I realize that these kinds of slogans generally mean “I Support Abortion” or “Keep Abortion Legal,” but they don’t explicitly say that. They are hiding a point behind an abstract idea. They are taking advantage of freedom of speech but not saying anything.

I don’t know if the person holding the “I Hate Life” sign really does hate life. I hope not. I suspect not, too, as most people hesitate to be that vulnerable with serious emotions. If he does, I feel sad for him, but also admire his clarity. He is saying what he really means, not hiding behind euphemisms or platitudes. By the same token, the march was a testament to clarity. Signs such as “Abortion Kills a Human Being” and “I Regret My Abortion” meant just that. Hopefully they gave people on the sidewalks and in the office windows something to really think about.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.