National Campus Life Network

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

From Secondhand Smoke:

Two Victorian couples are suing doctors for failing to diagnose Down syndrome in their unborn babies, denying them the chance to terminate the pregnancies. The couples are claiming unspecified damages for economic loss, continuing costs of care of the children, and “psychiatric injury”. Both say they would have aborted their pregnancies had they been told their children would be born with Down syndrome.

I pray that these parents come to realization that these children are gifts with much to offer this world. I also hope, like Wesley, that these children never learn that their parents did not want them to be born!

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 Theresa Stephenson

A couple, friends of my family, are expecting their first child. With excitement, I have been shown ultrasound photos and told about the baby kicking and moving. At one of their first ultrasound appointments, the technician explained that the baby was sleeping. What a human characteristic! How incredible, that while still in the protection of the mother’s womb, a tiny life is able to move, to kick, to sleep, to dream, to listen. Yet despite all of these amazing, miraculous things that an unborn baby is able to do, Canadian law does not outline any restrictions for abortion. Abortion is legal during all nine months of pregnancy for any and every reason.

But, tell me, what is the difference between a sleeping child who lies inside his or her mother and one who lies in his or her mother’s cradling arms? Tell me, what is the difference between a baby who listens to sounds and murmurs of his or her parents’ voices while cocooned inside the womb and one who hears the sweet lullaby of his or her mother while lying in a crib? The difference is that one baby is “inside” and the other is “out”.

However, I would like to make the bold claim that in either case that human life is indeed a person. We have posted arguments that personhood should not be based on 1) size 2) level of development 3) environment and 4) degree dependency . Rights and liberties must be granted for all human beings regardless of the factors outlined above and any infringement of these rights is a heinous injustice.

We at uOttawa Students for Life fight against these violations and work to bring an end to abortion.

Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

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

This is a  good, concise summary of why the pill can be labelled as an abortifacient:

Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

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

By Margaret Stephenson

Yesterday evening a kind lady from St Catharines Right to Life shared the following article with me. It was published in the National Post on May 10th, 2010 in response to an article written 5 days earlier.

I was surprised to learn that the Pill acts as an abortifacient! Have a read below.

NB: BSFL does not intend to tackle the topic of contraception.

How the Pill Works

Despite the 50 years since the Pill first came on the market, much misinformation remains concerning the inherent risks associated with oral contraceptive use. Not only is oral contraceptive use associated with an increased risk for stroke and heart attack, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies oral contraceptives as carcinogenic to humans. Oral contraceptives increase the risk for developing breast cancer, cervical cancer and liver cancer.

Women are further misguided with respect to the mode of action of oral contraceptives. The primary mode of action of the Pill is to suppress ovulation. A secondary mode is to inhibit transport of sperm through the cervix by thickening the cervical mucus. Should the first two methods fail and conception occurs, oral contraceptives also cause changes in the endometrium to prevent or disrupt implantation of a fertilized embryo.

The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third mechanism is abortifacient. Many women, on learning that the Pill is an abortifacient, are horrified and so not want to use it.

- Suzana Kovacic, Burnaby BC

Read the comments at the Brock Students for Life website.

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

By Matt Martyres

A woman who suffers from tuberculosis is pregnant.

Read the comments at the Brock Students for Life website.

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

I was recently given a wonderful opportunity: I got to meet Nick Vujicic, a 27-year-old motivational speaker from Australia. To date, he has traveled to 32 countries and spoken to millions of people about his story and his faith.

What makes this man so inspirational? He was born without arms or legs. His parents didn’t expect this while his mother was pregnant – they found out when he was born. I encourage you to learn more about his story. This man has overcome so many obstacles and has dedicated his life to helping others.

But what is this doing on the pro-life club’s blog? The unfortunate reality of our society is that when a woman is pregnant and prenatal testing reveals that the baby may have some sort of disability, there is significant pressure for her to choose abortion. After meeting Nick Vujicic we met a woman whose young daughter was born without arms. Doctors encouraged her to have an abortion, but she chose not to. Her daughter is two years old now, and she’s a wonderful little girl.

Many times in discussions of abortion people have said to me “What about babies that are going to be born with disabilities? Isn’t it better to spare them from such a difficult life?” I ask you: Would someone be justified in killing Nick Vujicic because he has no arms or legs and faces many challenges in his life because of this? Of course not! Would someone be justified in killing a toddler born without arms because she will face many obstacles as she grows up? Of course not! Would someone be justified in killing a newborn baby because of his or her differences or disabilities? Of course not! So why would we kill an unborn human being for these reasons?

This brings us back to the fundamental question in the abortion debate: what are the unborn? As American apologist Gregory Koukl says, “If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.” Biologically, from the moment of fertilization, there exists a unique individual of the human species – a human being.

Our value is determined by what we are (human beings), not by what our capabilities are. We don’t have to look too hard to find examples of people who inspire us precisely because they have overcome significant challenges in their life. Who inspires you?

Read the comments at the Youth Protecting Youth website.

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

By Margaret Stephenson

A week ago I was in Wisconsin for a dear friend’s wedding. I shared a hotel room with an old library-pal of mine who studied Medical Science at UWO. Comfortable in our cozy hotel room, we caught up on each other’s news into the early hours of the morning.

She told me about her experience this past year as a student at UWO’s Schulich School of Dentistry. I asked her if she hopes to specialize in a particular area of dentistry. Her reply? She hopes to work with special-needs patients and to build a practice that provides for their particular needs.

Having just heard Stephanie Gray speak about the importance of creating opportunities to speak about life issues, I decided to do just that.

“Did you know,” I asked, “that a majority of mothers opt for abortion when prenatal test results appear to indicate genetic disorders or birth defects?”

She had no idea.

We launched into a discussion of the moral implications and responsibilities of prenatal screening. I’m grateful for our conversation. It’s reassuring to know that at least one Canadian dentist-to-be has a heart for those members of our community dismissed as “less than” because they’re different than most. I just hope that when she opens her practise she has patients.

As I considered this blogpost I spent time paging through the Canadian Down Syndrome Soceity’s website. One article in particular caught my attention: Different is Beautiful. It’s written by Tom Koch, an adjunct professor of gerontology at Simon Fraser University and a research associate in bioethics at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Koch criticizes the present-day obsession with accepting only “normal” persons and the tendency to abort the “others”:

Across the last century we have learned to value normalcy above difference, and beauty above all. This is the history of the euthanasia movement, and the discrimination that persons in your community have faced. We’re talking about “difference,” about “ugly,” about “them”. Genetics is fueling a new discrimination that is eugenic in nature.

And:

Now the tests – however they are done – don’t tell us much except that the genetic marker is present. They don’t speak to the severity of the condition they predict. Nor, as you all will note, do they speak of the love the child will give its family and friends if it is born. It says, loud and “different”, and for some this is more than enough reason to abort.

Like Koch I believe that each child is of inestimable value regardless of the presence of absence of “genetic markers.” 

Another friend of mine is in her first trimester of pregnancy. As she proudly showed me the ultrasound pictures of her baby she explained that her doctor advised her to undergo prenatal testing. But to what end? Certainly, it is wise to safeguard the health of mother and child throughout pregnancy and to be aware of any complications that may arise during pregnancy. Yet any pretense of running such tests for the sake of the child is discounted when abortion is proposed as a solution, if not the solution, to undesirable test results. The termination of a human life helps no one. It is a grave abdication of responsibility and a fatal denial of the parent’s duty to love and care for his or her offspring.

Let’s create opportunities to talk with family and friends about the present-day correlation between prenatal testing and abortion. Let’s support parents as they raise special-needs children. Let’s learn from my dentist-to-be friend and open our hearts and arms to adults who live with special-needs.

Read the comments at the Brock Students for Life website.

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

By Stephanie Della Smirra

How can you spread the pro-life message to hundreds of millions of people? Show a commercial during the Super Bowl, of course!

As much as it’s known for serious football the Super Bowl is known for high-profile ads that attract millions of viewers (myself included!). A commercial with a pro-life message was aired during this year’s Super Bowl on February 7, 2010 amidst much controversy.

The advertisement, produced by Focus on the Family, features star University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, who had refused to have an abortion many years ago. While living as a missionary in the Philippines Pam Tebow was advised to have an abortion after she took strong medications to treat amoebic dysentery. Why? Because the medications put the fetus at risk for serious disabilities. But she refused to abort her child and gave birth to a healthy baby boy: Tim Tebow. Now Tim is a Heisman Trophy-winning American football quarterback.

Pro-choice advocates were less than thrilled with CBS’s decision to air the ad. Groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW protested loudly and drummed up much controversy over the matter. After all the hype many expected the commercial would be a harsh, distastful anti-abortion plug. In reality, it wasn’t offensive at all.

Judge for yourself. View the commercial.

Many were puzzled as to why all the controversy had been created in the first place.While heartwarming, the ad is so mildly pro-life that viewers may have missed the point if not for the protests of pro-choicers.

One of the perks of the freedom of speech is that if Focus on the Family wishes to spend $2.5 million on airtime they have a right to do so.

Admist all the Super Bowl ads that promote immorality, this 30-second clip was devoted to an important moral issue. Despite complaints that you shouldn’t mix sports with politics, I think it’s refreshing to see a young football star standing up for his beliefs.

Read the comments at the Brock Students for Life website.

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

By James Carnegie

If you haven’t noticed lately, the issue of abortion is gaining more and more coverage in our country each day. While abortion has never been a ‘quiet’ issue, its public and political discussion has reached somewhat of a peak recently, which is ironic considering Prime Minister Harper’s intention to keep the abortion debate silenced with regard to Canadian politics. What sparked this increase in discussion? It could easily be pinpointed to Liberal Party leader Ignatieff’s recommendation that abortion be included in the G8 plan as a form of maternal health and Harper’s subsequent denial of the suggestion. But, south of the border abortion has been an area of contention for months now as President Obama moved to create health care, including publicly funded abortion, in the United States. Although it has been made to appear otherwise, the health care bill does include abortion.

And now, a few months after the passing of the health care bill in the US, the abortion debate has found its way into Canadian politics. Perhaps Ignatieff was trying to use abortion as a political tactic, having seen its success in Obama’s presidency with its inclusion in the health care bill. Harper’s approach seems to be the opposite in the sense that abortion could lead to the weakening of public support for his Prime Ministership. While there are certainly other factors affecting our politicians in their decisions concerning abortion, abortion has primarily become a political device, having been stripped of any moral implication.

When Prime Minister Harper refused to include abortion in the G8 plan it seemed to be a step in the right direction but more recent statements have shown that this was not the case. A recent bill introduced by Rod Bruinooge (MP, Winnipeg South), called Roxanne’s law, is meant to protect women against coercive abortion. Bill C-510 would make it illegal to force women into having an abortion against their will. Roxanne Fernando, from whom the bill takes its name, was an immigrant from the Philippines who was was beaten to death by her boyfriend and two of his friends because she refused to abort her child. While this bill is not directly an attempt to protect the unborn, it would protect the pregnant woman who wishes to to keep her child. In the heat of debate and the introduction of Bill C-510 , Mr. Harper has said, “I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.” With this statement the PM is officially opposing the protection of both mother and child, furthering the abortion-debate-as-political-device argument.

While the abortion debate has certainly been mistreated, the introduction of Bill C-510 by Rod Bruinooge, chair of the Pro-Life Caucus, and the existence of the Pro-Life Caucus itself are signs that there is a need for change in Canadian law concerning issues of life. The recent defeat of a Liberal motion to include funding for abortion at the G8 Summit by the Conservatives, including some Liberal votes, is another hopeful sign. Furthermore, we as Canadian citizens are not merely onlookers to the decisions made in parliament but can play an active role in how our Members of Parliament vote. We are represented by our MP’s and so it is prudent to inform your MP of your opinion on life issues through letters, e-mails, and by signing petitions.

LifeSiteNews article quoting PM Harper:“Canadian PM Harper Opposes Law Protecting Women from Coercive Abortions”

Learn about Roxanne’s law: http://www.roxanneslaw.ca/

Sign the Roxanne’s Law Petition: http://roxanneslaw.ca/WhatYouCanDo.html

Read the comments at the Brock Students for Life website.

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

“We are here to celebrate life.” These words were spoken by Pope John Paul II in one of his visits to Canada, and were repeated by Bishop Monroe from the Diocese of Kamloops at this year’s March for Life. Over 2000 participants walked through the streets of Victoria to the legislative buildings, bearing witness to their love and respect for life from conception until natural death. Our celebration of the beauty of life is tainted by forty years of unlimited access to abortion in Canada, but we are not without hope that we can make a change.

The march united people of all ages, representing a variety of religious beliefs from Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and other communities. It was encouraging to see so many enthusiastic youth lead the way to the legislative buildings, carrying the pro-life banners, and cheering loudly whenever they received positive comments from bystanders. As Rev. Rob Fitterer from Emmanuel Baptist Church noted in his address to the marchers, the younger generation has noticed the devastating effects of abortion and the lifestyles that lead to it and is embracing an authentic vision of life. Nowhere is this more evident than on university campuses, where Youth Protecting Youth and other pro-life clubs across Canada are bearing witness to the truth despite facing censorship. Minerva Macapagal from Capilano College reminded those gathered that although pro-life advocacy on university and college campuses may make us unpopular, it is essential; we who understand the reality of abortion have a responsibility to tell the truth.

Rachel Daniels told the truth as she described an authentic feminism to march participants: “True feminism bears witness to life. True feminism chooses life.” We must be compassionate towards women who are contemplating abortion or who have had one, and reach out to them so they too can understand their dignity as women.

“Give up, you lost.” As Rev. Rob Fitterer pointed out, these words have been thrown in the faces of many pro-life advocates in the past four decades. Since Canada abolished its laws on abortion, over three million unborn babies have died, and countless women and men have been hurt; this is abortion’s legacy. But pro-life advocates are not going to sit back and watch as the children of our nation are killed.

Drawing a confident comparison to VE day, Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform spoke of a new day – a day coming soon – when we will celebrate victory over abortion. Jeff Charleson expressed a beautiful foreshadowing of the joy we will feel when this day comes, as he sang his uncle’s traditional First Nations song for the marchers. Each of us needs to work in our own way to save the unborn, and someday soon we will celebrate VA day.

Anastasia Pearse, Eric Kyfiuk, & Catherine Shenton, of Youth Protecting Youth

Read the comments at the Youth Protecting Youth website.