National Campus Life Network

By Sara Hall, Maritime Campus Coordinator

Below is the new video created by Lia Mills, a popular young woman in the pro-life community. In this video campaign she explains how some choices are wrong and some are a matter of personal preference. She goes on to show the humanity of the unborn by revealing the illogic of common pro-choice arguments. Lia completes her video by asking the question “Is it possible to be a human but not a person.” She is currently working on a video to answer that very question.

By Rebecca Richmond, Executive Director

Earlier this summer, Theresa Gilbert and I spoke at a large youth retreat outside of Cornwall, Ontario.  Over the course of two 1-hour workshops on what it is to be pro-life we spoke to about 300 high school students.  The feedback we received following the workshops was very positive.  I remember speaking to several people, both high school students and chaperones, who told us they had never heard the pro-life message communicated in such an effective way, where they felt equipped to defend the truth.  Still, I can never help wondering what happens to some of the young people who hear our presentations.

About two weeks ago I heard from one high school student who attended the talk.  Prior to the talk, she told me, she had been ‘on the fence’ about abortion.  But not anymore. “I know now,” she wrote in a message, “that being pro-life isn’t about denying a woman’s right to her body but instead to fight for the most vulnerable people in our society.”

Here’s her story:

“The reason my mind was 100% changed was because of your talk. I was on the fence about being pro-life because my mom is not. She’s not totally pro-choice either, but she believes that there are some gray areas concerning abortion (such as rape and incest), and that it cannot be as black & white as the pro-life message makes it. I was ignorant about abortion and even as I learned more about it and decided it was wrong, I told myself that I can’t make decisions for other people. I’ve also told myself that even if abortion wasn’t legal anymore there would be more women dying from unsafe abortions. I kept on telling myself anything that would justify not being pro-life, but deep down I felt as if I was lying to myself.

In your talk you addressed all the justifications I had told myself and undermined each one, until I realised that the excuses I had been feeding my conscience were not valid, and weren’t even based on the facts. I decided then that I needed to tell people. I didn’t know what I was going to do, or how I was going to do it, or if I’d even have the guts to tell my mom my plans, but I felt God telling me that this was something I needed to do. When I told my mom, she respected my decision.

When I thought of how I was going to tell people about what abortion really is, I wanted to have it somehow made a part of a subject in school. I figured since the developing of a human life is taught in science class, so should the absolute destruction of that same being. I was planning on talking to my principal to see how I could even get that started. The more I thought about it, however, the more I wasn’t sure how that would work. Would I be able to start that in my school? My school board? Or would I have to reach the really big people: the government? As my answer was leaning to the hardest people to reach, I decided I would have to start smaller. I thought about maybe writing a poem about abortion and reading it to my school at an assembly, but what ended up happening was instead of a poem, a whole play was emerging. The script is evolving into not just a play about abortion, but about teen pregnancy and the many challenges pregnant teens face. It’s still in the works, but… I’m hoping it will be completed soon. “

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

Perhaps some of you may recall a story that was in the news recently, the story of a lady in the small village of Villers-au-Tertre, France, who suffocated eight of her newborn children and hid their bodies in her garage in plastic bags, simply because she “didn’t want any more children” and did not want to get doctors involved.

This story has aroused the horror of the local populace, and rightly so. The lady in question’s next door neighbour has called the events “revolting” and “monstrous”. A lady down the street stated that “We’re really in a state of shock”. Another asked, “How could anyone do something like that?”

These sentiments have been echoed by people around the globe. You can see a slice of the online discussion here — notable comments include “I wanted to throw up a little bit” and “This goes beyond the inconceivable”… not to mention those which are too vulgar to quote on our blog.

What has me confused is that I thought the general populace approved of this sort of thing. Whatever happened to the right of a mother to choose whether or not to bring up her children?  Whatever happened to the right of a mother to kill her offspring if she doesn’t want them? After all, it’s just a baby; it can’t think or do anything on its own. Right?

Right?

Admittedly, the laws on abortion are more strict in France than they are in Canada. But the fact is, I have yet to hear a reasonable defense of abortion of any sort that does not also allow for infanticide. If you can kill someone immediately before birth, why can’t you kill someone immediately after? And if the death of eight newborn children causes such horror, why does the death of three hundred unborn go unnoticed?

So in the end, I have to agree with Fr Robert Meignotte, the curé of Villers-au-Tertre: “I’m thinking of all the children in the world… you just don’t throw children out like that in a garbage bag. It’s inconceivable.”

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 Reita S.

We live in a mixed up world. We always have. There has always been evil in this world. There always will be. But it seems to me that a large part of this evil comes from losing track of the important things in this life.

When people begin to think that their own socio-economic betterment comes above justice for their fellows, then oppression follows. When people forget that religion is meant to bring a message of peace and love, they force it on others with threats and violence. When people forget they were not destined to be kings of all the rest of the earth, then colonialism and slavery result.

Today, we think we have learned those lessons. Today, we don’t believe that anymore. (Or so we tell ourselves.) In Utah, a man faces years in prison over the (accidental) death of a kitten. Animal activist leagues are pushing for a jail term. One activist said, “I think people tend to not think of them [cats] as beings that have a soul and a nervous system. They can still feel.”

So, tell me what kind of society we are that wants to send a man to jail for the accidental death of a cat, but will applaud at the ‘woman’s right to choose’? Don’t people realise that the woman has the right to choose whether or not to kill her child?

How is it that the demonstrated living nature, genetic uniqueness, and ability to feel pain of the unborn child is brushed aside, yet the cat’s ‘soul and nervous system’ should be a compelling argument?

I don’t know why there are thousands of children languishing in inadequate foster homes and orphanages, but people will leave billions of dollars to dog shelters.

I believe strongly in responsible pet ownership. I believe in caring for animals. But at the end of the day, why is it okay to kill a human child at any point of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, but a criminal act to harm a cat or dog? Why is the human child of such little significance? Can someone tell me the difference?

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 Marissa Poisson

As was announced in July, free infertility treatment will be available in Quebec starting this month, which leads one to believe that infertility is now considered a disease there. Paradoxically, pregnancy also seems to be classified as a disease in the province and throughout the country given the availability of publicly funded abortion. Are the definitions of any other diseases wholly dependent on the circumstances of the individuals they afflict?

As a young woman, am I to believe that if I were to become pregnant now, when it would interfere with my university studies, the sensible choice would be abortion and that if I were to find myself unable to start a family in twenty years, it would be reasonable to expect free IVF?

The incoherence is jarring. Quebec’s politicians stand behind aborting tens of thousands of future Francophones every year yet are poised to spend lavishly to enable women to try their luck at conceiving artificially. Adoption seems to be the forgotten component in this equation; it needs to be encouraged as a viable option for women facing unplanned pregnancies and infertile couples. In the multi-million dollar business of life and death, the cures are worse than the diseases.

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 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 uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

But the problem is, I’m still in math mode, so what you’re getting today may be a bit over your head. But it does make for interesting reading, or at least indulging in some more pro-life nerdiness

Aerodynamics, Mathematics and Pro Life

[Note: This article does have a religious slant.]

Read the comments at the uOttawa 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 one thing is evident in the abortion debate, it is the difference in argument of those in favour of abortion and those who oppose it. You can see this by listening to speakers or reading literature from either side. While pro-lifers often refer to their opponents as ‘pro-aborts’ the pro-choicers often use the term ‘anti-choice.’  In seeing how names are used in this debate one thing becomes clear: those opposed to abortion and those who support it are arguing two separate issues.

The argument of Brock Students For Life, along with all other pro-life advocates, is based upon demonstrating the inherent dignity of all human life from conception to natural death. Our opponents, however, build their argument upon the idea of choice. For this reason, rather than arguing why the unborn are not human, the pro-choice side tends to argue why the woman has a right to control her body.

In my experience, the abortion advocates I have encountered have avoided the question of the humanity of the unborn by turning to the worst-case-scenarios. By resting upon the cases of rape, incest, and the endangerment of the mother’s life the pro-choicer turns the argument back to ‘choice,’ thus appealing to the “mushy middle,” those who do not have a strong belief in either direction.

What the pro-life advocate must do is keep the conversation focused on the topic of ‘life’ as opposed to ‘choice.’ When the opponent argues that abortion should be legal because of the cases listed above we must explain why in both the case of the rape of a minor and the inconvenience of another child to a married couple the fetus is, in fact, a human being and, therefore, aborting him or her is murderous.

Without disrespect to those I have debated in the past, I have noticed a tendency to deny the reality of factual evidence. Usually this is justified by the argument that “there is nothing wrong with aborting a clump of cells.” Otherwise the facts I’ve presented are glossed over and  ’choice’  is again trumpeted.

In my opinion, this is further proof that it is essential that we, as pro-life advocates, have the tools and skills necessary to defend our position. We must be able to explain to persons of any opinion that the unborn are human, that it is not a matter of choice but a matter of life and death.

In future posts I will dive further into pro-life arguments and the how to defend our position when challenged (apologetics = “to speak in defense”). If anyone has a particular pro-choice argument to which they would like a pro-life response please leave it in the comment section and I will include it in my next post. Until next time, keep fighting the good fight!

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 Brandon Szambor

I’ve been thinking of a topic for a blog post since Margaret kindly came up with this concept for our club. It has been difficult for me, to say the least. To be perfectly honest, I do not have much experience in expressing my pro-life view with words. I have always known that abortion is wrong, but I haven’t given much thought to why, exactly. Certainly it isn’t a bi-product of partisan politics, since I was pro-life long before having any conservative political views (in fact, I was a self-described communist/anarchist during most of my teenage years). I suppose what really made up my mind was the fact that in Canada we do not have any laws regulating when exactly a fetus becomes ‘viable’ and therefore a human being.

It is a troubling thought that a full-term, 9-month old fetus can have its head impaled and be ripped out of the womb by a doctor who, presumably, feels absolutely no moral reprehension regarding this greusome ending of its life. Such is the case in Canada where such late-term abortion legal. I have not read any polls on the subject (much as I have faith in Canada’s professional pollsters, I doubt many would take on such a job), but I’m positive that the majority of Canadians would find this sort of late-term barbarism appalling. I’m also positive that any such poll would reveal that the vast majority assume that cases of full-term abortion are illegal in Canada, as they should be.

Therein lies the key for the pro-life movement as I see it in this nation. Once we get people thinking about the utter wrongness of full-term abortions, the next logical question is when exactly a fetus should be considered a viable human being. Of course putting an exact figure on that, as they do in most Western countries, would then raise the question of what that means for the fetus only one day short of the cutoff date. Is the 22-week 6-day fetus no less a person than the 23-week fetus? And what about the 22-week 5-day fetus? And so on. If only a person looks at the situation with such logic, the only fair position to take would then be to side with life in all cases, as we in BSFL do.

This, my first humble post among such intellectual giants as Matt, James (and James), Andrew, Stephanie, and Margaret, will hopefully not be my last. The important thing is getting the discussion started. Right-minded Canadians will do the rest of our jobs for us.

Read the comments at the Brock Students For Life website.