No results were found.
An error occurred while attempting to retrieve data. Please try again.
Please select the option to share your location in order to use the Detect My Location feature.
We were unable to detect your location. Please enter your postal code instead.
Postal code and geolocation data may not always be accurate. Please check to ensure that the electoral districts displayed below are correct.

Blog

UPDATE: Motion 408 is scheduled for its first hour of debate on March 28th! Before that happens the motion has to be deemed votable by a sub-committee. Your MP and Prime Minister Harper need to hear from you in order for it to make it...

  Below is an edited letter associated with this disturbing story. The new Justice Minister Peter MacKay needs to hear from you! Please click here and follow the 3 simple steps to send it to your MP.   Recently released figures published by Pat Maloney,...

by Mike Schouten Canada’s leading pro-choice advocates regularly argue that if the law recognizes the rights of pre-born children, even minutely, Canadians might develop alternative thoughts regarding abortion. Joyce Arthur, the executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is quoted as saying, “If the fetuses are recognized in [law], ...it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.” Unfortunately, rather than going down a “positive slippery slope” leading towards a more inclusive human rights doctrine in Canada, Canadian jurisprudence tells a different story. While the promotion of infanticide by “ethicists” such as Peter Singer and two philosophers in a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics is generally dismissed by the public as extreme, Canada’s top legal experts are increasingly using our lack of legal protection for pre-born children as an excuse to enter the world wherein infanticide is an acceptable practice for women who have given birth and don’t receive the support they require to take care of their newborn child. Please email your MP today using this tool and let them know that we need a law to stop the slide towards infanticide! Click Here to send the email!

Guest Post by Margaret Somerville (This article originally appeared at theprovince.com and is re-published here with the author's permission) Your editorial, “The abortion debate is over, so shut up” is very bluntly expressed pro-choice wishful thinking on your part. This debate is not going away. It’s gaining strength. The editorial does, however, accurately reflect a belief of many Canadians that there seems to be no way for us to reach any consensus on the law that should govern abortion, as recent votes in Parliament have consistently demonstrated. I don’t agree, but note I’ve qualified the word consensus with the adjective “any”. I believe a majority of Canadians can find some “common ground” regarding legal regulation of abortion, but this must be distinguished from finding unanimous agreement – that’s impossible. For many of us, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, this common ground will not be a “perfect” stance. That’s unavoidable because we live in a pluralistic society where people have vastly divergent worldviews; we don’t all share the same convictions about the intrinsic dignity and value of all human beings, from their conception to their natural death; and we disagree whether the value of respect for life or that of individual autonomy should take priority when they conflict. The present legal situation, in Canada, defended to the death by some pro-choice advocates, is that there are and should be no legal restrictions on abortion. In stark contrast, some pro-life advocates believe that any law short of the total prohibition of abortion is unacceptable, because, agreeing to a law which still allows some abortions would constitute complicity in the evil of abortion. Many pro-life advocates now recognize, however, that a total prohibition is not achievable, that the virtue of prudence requires them to implement the protection that is presently feasible, and protecting some unborn children is better than protecting none. Consequently, they would welcome some legal restrictions on abortion short of a complete prohibition. They rightly argue that government has an essential role to play in restricting certain activities, whereby unborn children’s human rights are violated. Likewise, many Canadians, who would describe themselves as pro-choice, believe that some legal restrictions on abortion should be enacted.

  Have you ever wondered the effect of all those petitions which have been sent off to Ottawa? Well, wonder no longer. Jennifer Ditchburn of the Canadian Press has written a story that gives a little (actually a huge) window into the effect pro-life petitions are...

This article has been republished with permission from unmaskingchoice.ca By Stephanie Gray This week I’ll be making a return trip to speak at my alma mater, UBC. This upcoming engagement has brought to mind an encounter I had with a philosophy and pre-law student at that same campus just a few months ago. The young woman was justifying abortion from the perspective of abortion advocate Judith Jarvis Thompson who argues that even if the pre-born are human persons, they do not have a right to use another person’s body without consent.  Given that this argument continues to be raised by some who support abortion, I thought it would be helpful to create an imaginary exchange between two people debating this perspective: AA (Abortion Advocate): If a famous violinist was going to die and someone who had the right body type to keep him alive was kidnapped in order to be plugged into the violinist, wouldn’t we say that while the violinist is a full human person he doesn’t have the right to use another’s body without consent?  Wouldn’t we say that the kidnap victim has no obligation to keep the violinist plugged into him, and that just as the kidnap victim may unplug the violinist, a woman may “unplug” her fetus?

The November 19th edition of Maclean's magazine has published a feature article on the growth and renewed momentum in Canada's pro-life movement. The piece, written by Charlie Gillis is titled, "The Right Words". It takes an objective look at recent attempts to place fetal rights back on the agenda of public discourse. The author attributes the change in strategy, endorsed by WeNeedaLAW.ca and many other groups, as a major contributing factor to the renewed excitement in the pro-life movement. Here's a few paragraphs from the article: "Why, then, is it [fetal rights] back on the public agenda?...In part because the law abhors a vacuum. Just as important, though, has been a renewed sense of mission within Canada’s battle-scarred pro-life movement, which has modified both its message and strategy to more closely reflect mainstream values. A pivotal moment came last May, when representatives from the Association for Reformed Political Action, a national Christian advocacy group, approached Vancouver-based activist Mike Schouten about running an initiative to build support for fetal protection legislation.

*This article first appeared at www.stephenwoodworth.ca and is republished here with Mr. Woodworth's permission. Part I: Motion 312, Fixed-Wing Technology and Ballooning -An Allegoryby Stephen Woodworth Note:  The following account is intended to be entirely fictional.  Resemblance to any persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. In the early days of air flight, a Canadian aviation engineer was well-known for his opposition to ballooning (which was the established method of air flight in those days).  He actively spoke and wrote against ballooning, penning letters to the editor and articles in professional journals to express this opposition to ballooning.After years of being stonewalled by an aviation establishment entirely enamoured with ballooning and which was completely unwilling to consider alternatives, he fell into deep thought.“Perhaps I could find some other issue to pursue on which a majority of Canadians could agree,” he wondered to himself “Could I find some aviation principles on which we might find a consensus?” After serious analysis, he came up with some aviation principles he felt might be acceptable to everyone.  He suggested a process to study the principles of fixed-wing aircraft to determine whether or not they should be pursued.  He suggested that the study consider whether or not existing legal prohibitions against fixed wing aviation were consistent with early 20th century aviation science and understanding.  He pointed out that Canada was one of only a few advanced nations to completely protect ballooning against fixed wing development.

This article is written by Jonathon Van Maren, communications director for Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and is re-published with his permission. I have two huge pet peeves about the way politicians, commentators, and people in general talk about abortion in the public sphere. Well, actually a lot more than two, but two that have bothered me recently and often. First, politicians seem to have a habit of saying things like, “I believe life begins at conception” or “I believe abortion kills a baby and is wrong.” You’re probably thinking, What’s wrong with that? Sounds good to me! The problem with this is that those two statements are not a matter of subjective belief. They are scientific fact. I don’t really care if you “believe” life begins at conception or if you “disbelieve” it. When life begins is a scientific question and science answers that question for us very definitively. To cite only one of many examples, Keith L. Moore’s embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology states that, “Human development begins at fertilization, when a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (That’s from the eighth edition, page 15 if you want to fact-check me.) Now imagine if Paul Ryan had said something like that while Joe Biden was trying to explain why he didn’t need to live his faith.

Canada is a great place to live and the envy of many in the world. We believe in the rule of law and have authorities that enforce it by determining what is right and wrong. The role of government is to restrain immoral behaviour by...

Join us in building support for these initiatives:

Subscribe