National Campus Life Network > Articles by: Brock Students for Life

Brock Students For Life: Carleton Students Arrested

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

On Monday morning 5 peaceful pro-life students were arrested at Carleton University while setting up the Genocide Awareness Project display on campus.

Brock Students For Life humbly applauds the courage of each of these students. Through their suffering they draw our attention to an even greater injustice: the killing of unborn children.

The students were denied a public space to air the peaceful protest, and were instead offered a closed room in a remote section of campus.

This is an issue of censorship of an unpopular message by the Carleton University administration, and a shameful violation of the rules laid out in Carleton’s own student handbook.

The students were charged with trespassing.

As a side, note  how an officer claims that the university is private property. It is not private property and is in fact government funded and they say so on their own web site:

By the end of the 1960s, Carleton, like other universities in the province, had become a provincial institution, relying on provincial grants to cover its operating and its capital costs. One consequence was that the regulations governing these grants often shaped university planning.

Read the comments at the Brock Students For Life website.

Brock Students For Life: BSFL at Brock’s O-Week Vendor Fair

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

Members of BSFL brought the pro-life message to crowds of students at Brock today!

BSFL set up a booth at the Vendor and Club Fair which showcases community services, campus services and student clubs. In a flurry of activity a few thousand students checked out the fair today and happily scooped up all the free-bees they could carry.

Predictably, the BSFL table didn’t attract hordes of students. Most passersby noticed us, though. A few abortion advocates asked questions; one hopes to engage us in dialogue later in the semester. Some pro-lifers connected with us, too: we look forward to working together this year!

James, in a stroke of pro-active presidential genius, suggested walking through the crowds to hand out as many of NCLN’s We Know Better Now information flyers as possible. We handed out 500 flyers (497 to be exact – we kept 3 copies at our booth). Tomorrow we’ll pass out another 500. This is what the cover looks like:

Thank-you NCLN for producing a resource that looks so unassuming! We’d ask each student “did ya get one yet?” and almost without fail they’d grab one from us and say “thanks!”  Distributing pro-life info couldn’t be easier.  Some stuffed the flyer into their bags, hopefully to read it tonight or when they rediscover it in a few months on their bedroom floor. Others opened the flyers up right away and started reading. Right away people were talking. Awesome! Let’s get people talking.

Come by and visit our booth at the Vendor Fair tomorrow!

Read the comments at the Brock Students For Life website.

Brock Students For Life: An Introduction to Pro-Life Apologetics

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.

Brock Students For Life: Heartless Procedure

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 Martyres



Dr. D.Seat




A dark room. The room is enclosed with red walls and Joseph has a rope attached to his waist.  Dr. D.Seat enters stage right with a pair of large forceps in his hand.


Joseph looks up towards Dr. D.Seat.

Doctor (talking to the room): Don’t worry, there is nothing in here but unneeded tissue. I will get rid of it.

Narrator: Joseph looks frightened and tries to move away but is unable because of the rope.

Voice (offstage): Please get rid of it quickly. I don’t need this right now.

Doctor: Relax. The procedure won’t harm you. Just relax.

Narrator: Dr. D. Seat walks up to Joseph and grabs him by the arm with the forceps. Joseph tries to speak. He wants to tell the doctor to stop. He tries to shout out but can’t even get a sound out.

The doctor pulls at Joseph with forceps, tearing his arm from his body. Joseph collapses on the floor. Again the forceps grasp Joseph, this time slashing the right side of the chest.  The doctor twists and yanks his torso. Lastly the forceps locate and squeeze Joseph’s head. Blood trickles down his scalp.

Doctor: Almost done.

A final snap is heard as the skull of Joseph is broken.

Voice: Is it over?


This story might seem absurd, but it reflects a tragic reality in Canada. It attempts to depict the stark contrast two perspectives on abortion: the doctor who understands it as a “clinical procedure” and child who is brutally killed.

Let me discuss Joseph’s character.

Joseph is an unborn child (fetus). Some say (and have said to me) that a fetus is just a blob of tissue. While each person is comprised of various tissues those tissues form organs. As a fetus develops, his or her heartbeat can be heard as early as 4 weeks. Fingernails are formed by 10 weeks. Hair on the head is present by 20 weeks.  Even more astonishing, a baby can survive out of the womb at 20 weeks (15% chance).

The “voice”? The voice represents the mother of the child. Many abortive mothers are unfamiliar with the details of the abortion procedure and don’t know what to expect. Most fear an uncertain future. A pregnancy changes parents’ lives in major ways. An unexpected pregnancy is no exception and abortion is held up as a “quick fix,” a fast, private way to eliminate an inconvenient problem.

Just as true friends kindle their friendship in the present moment undaunted by the potential problems of the future, so too parents are to care for their children regardless of a frightening future. Our culture and, more importantly, each one of us must support and encourage men and women who, even unexpectedly, discover themselves to be new parents.

For more information on the many different methods of abortion please explore the links below. Be warned, the methods are unnerving. Remember: these methods are legal in Canada. Sometimes I ask myself, “is it over”?

LifeSiteNews: Abortion Types

BellaOnline: Common Pro-Life Questions

Read the comments at the Brock Students For Life website.

Brock Students For Life: Getting the Discussion Started

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

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.

Share Button

Read the comments at the Brock Students For Life website.

Brock Students For Life: Are you “in” or “out”? Your life may depend on it.

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

By Andrew Korchok

I recently read an article about a woman in Vancouver who was charged with the murder of her two newborn sons, both killed shortly after their birth, their bodies hidden and left to rot. One quote that particularly struck me was from Vancouver Police Deputy Chief Warren Lemcke, who said “Few incidents are more tragic than the death of a child but when that death is allegedly at the hands of the mother, it is unimaginable. And when it is two children, it is incomprehensible,” True words indeed; our society abhors and decries the senseless murder of our children  – born ones, that is.

The article goes on to mention that the suspect is facing second-degree murder charges, which hold a maximum sentence of life in prison, rather than infanticide, which only holds a maximum sentence of five years. Yes, this is so heinous and deplorable a crime that it carries the possibility of life in prison. And well it should! What mother could possibly be so evil-minded as to take the lives of two of her newborn babies? Why, she ought to be put away for all eternity!

I’m sure you already know where I’m going with this. Despite reviling in disgust at the thought of a mother killing her own newborn sons, we still turn a blind eye to the thousands upon thousands of abortions performed every year in hospitals and clinics, leaving one to ask what, exactly, is the difference? Why do we shake our heads in abject shock, mouths agape, at the bone-chilling sight of a police officer carrying a body bag the size of a purse, and yet at the same time defend with great ardour a woman’s right to reach inside her womb and choke out with the hand of hypocrisy the vibrant growing life within her, leaving only the dead, rotting remnants of a terminated life in it’s place? Are we truly arrogant enough to believe that the walls of a woman’s womb can shield our eyes from the culture of death we’re promoting?

Or do we believe that there truly is a difference between those still safe and protected in their mother’s bellies, and those who have been thrust out into this world of harm and danger? The victims of this horrible murder were not pre-schoolers or toddlers. They could not speak, nor walk, nor feed or sustain themselves. They were helpless, defenseless newborns, physically no different from when they were in their mother’s womb. Are we expected to believe that this child has every right to live in a world of death and danger, and no right to live in the world of his mother’s womb, a world of safety, protection and new life?

Logically, it makes little sense. But of course the paths of humans and those of logic rarely, if ever, meet. We are not swayed at heart by twisting reason or philosophical arguments. We are swayed when we are faced with stories like this. We are moved when we are confronted with the ugly face of death and murder, replete in all its publicized glory which only serves to make it that much more palpable. We are convinced when we feel in our hearts and see with our eyes, the loss of human life and the grief that it brings.

This is why we as pro-lifers must never lose sight of the humanity of our situation. Abortionists will use every tool in their arsenal to deprive the act of abortion of all humanity. They hide behind medical terms and quaint euphemisms that reduce the act of murdering a child to a simple and routine medical procedure. They hide behind the walls of hospitals and clinics, places of healing and life-saving, all in an effort to convince the world, and themselves, that the act of abortion is a safe, effective and acceptable way to improve and control their own lives. The children they terminate are not worthy of such a title. After all, they cannot hear a fetus’ screams; they cannot see the unborn being carried away in body bags; they cannot see the look of terror and regret in the mother’s eyes as she is paraded before the media, her heinous crime broadcasted for all the world to see and condemn. All of this is hidden behind sterile hospital doors and euphemistic medical terms.

We however, must cling to our humanity, and attempt to share that humanity with others. We must expose to the world the true casualties of abortion: those whose lives have been shattered, and those whose lives have been erased. We must reach out with heartfelt sympathy to those women and those families who have been hurt by abortion, as well as those who are about to be hurt by it. We argue our case most effectively not when we resort to logical, moral and philosophical arguments in an attempt to confound and confuse our opponents, but when we put on display our love for humanity and our love for life. We do our job best when we show the world that we’re not here to win an argument; we’re here to save lives.

Read the comments at the Brock Students For Life website.

Brock Students for Life: Interesting Tidbit

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.

Brock Students for Life: Uncertain future? Unknown potential.

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.

Her husband has syphilis.

There are three children in the family.

One is blind, another deaf, and the other suffers from tuberculosis. Yet another child died in infancy.

Would you have recommended the mother to have abortions instead?

If so, then you have just taken the life of Ludwig van Beethoven.

This is one of many examples we hear when discussing the topic of abortion. Every year many abortions occur in Canada. In 2005, 96 815 abortions were recorded. If good can ever be seen in abortion stats it’s that there has been a decline in abortions since 1997 (abortioncanada.ca).

Among teenage women under the age of 20, the induced abortion rate in 2004 was 13.8 for every 1,000 women, down from 14.4 the year before. The induced abortion rate for these women has declined gradually since 1996 when it peaked at 18.9 (webhart.net). Sometimes, a teen in pregnancy finds having an abortion is one of the toughest decisions to make.

The following video by Nick Cannon tells the story of how his mother almost aborted him. Hopefully his story can help those young mothers make the right decision.

Read the comments at the Brock Students for Life website.