|
November 2000
W-Five smear job
No exceptions, no compromises, no apologies.
As the director of Aid To Women, I wish to respond to the "expose" of
W-Five, aired on November 5, 2000, being a result of a "three-month"
undercover investigation. Our agency, along with a number of pregnancy
centres, was castigated as "misleading" and "harming" women.
First of all, one wonders who is doing the deceiving and lying, as the
undercover W-Five reporter came into our office under false pretenses
(wanting to be a volunteer) carried a hidden camera and stayed for five
days. Also a woman was sent in, who pretended to be pregnant.
After that period of time, they came up with several shady accusations.
1. He claims to have had no training. In fact, he was given material to
take home to read and videos to watch. I spend several hours with him,
as did Robert Hinchey, to train him.
2. We are accused of showing pictures of bloody fetuses. One can easily
observe this "bloody fetus" to be a picture of the baby, being operated
on in his mother's womb.
3. I was asked to send my "nursing degree papers" since I was called a
nurse. They did not include this in the article.
4. George Eygenraam's statement. "We lure women in here" is a false quote,
George says (and I believe him). What was the leading question? Or was
the "don't" removed? The image is vague and in the distance, easy to mess
with.
As for his statement, "We do not make the women any wiser," we make no
apologies. We do not lie, but we have no obligation to send a women next
door, to have her preborn baby killed. Our mission is to provide her with
information about her preborn baby and offer her help and hope. In our
office we have a volunteer who will be happy to tell you how she ended
up in our office and has a beautiful son to prove our good intentions.
5. We are not in any way affiliated with CareNet.
6. We strongly disagree with Dr. Lalonde's statements. In fact, women
who have abortions are at risk of physical and psychological damage. The
counsellor made a direct quote from an article printed in the National
Post of May 1, 2000, when she says that 1 in 13 women is severely
damaged by abortion.
The "partial-birth abortion" shown on a video, are done in Canada. We
will not remove our "birth control ad" from the Yellow Pages. Abortion
has become the number-one birth-control method. We do counsel on "birth
control" - abstinence and natural family planning.
As for our "abortion information" sign, all information is available in
our office and will be dispensed for free. We do not do referrals or give
anyone the phone number or address to an abortuary.
As for the woman, Lee, she is the classic case of a post-abortive woman.
She is suffering and we ought to pray for her.
As a last thought I would like to ask: When will TV reporters be doing
an undercover investigation on the accuracies of the so-called abortion
clinics?
Joanne Dieleman
Director, Aid to Women Toronto
Trudeau I
He belongs to the ages. Canada's 15th Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
For five days, the nation witnessed an outpouring of grief, played out
live, viewed almost uninterrupted, on the country's publicly funded, national
broadcaster. The other private broadcasters, not to be outdone, gave extensive
coverage to what at times amounted to high drama, bordering on public
spectacle.
The baby boomers lost a national icon, emblematic of their heady, or perhaps
hedonistic past. One author lamented on CBC Newsworld that Trudeau was
not expected to age, but after a wistful sigh, added he did so. This a
reminder of our mortal existence and at the day's end, the inescapable
accounting for the canvas on which we've painted.
With the image of Trudeau, the buckskinned environmentalist paddling away
from the camera in a scene splashed with autumn foliage, still fresh in
the public's eye, Prime Minster Jean Chretien saw fit to rename Canada's
highest mountain after the man. Even though Chretien did a U-turn on the
decision, it was appropriate: the summit's dimension can be directly compared
to the origin and magnitude of the country's national debt. Now Chretien
wants a third mandate to govern and makes no bones about seeking that
mandate on the values espoused by his "cher ami."
If the public has any sense at all, they should be outraged that the so
called "values" of a dead man should be dredged up, re-heated and dished
out to those aiming at recapturing a misspent youth. This is the act of
a cold, visionless and desperate leader. I suspect the street person he
claims to have communed with has more political insight.
But let's look at Trudeau's "values." As justice minister and prime minister,
he decriminalized abortion. Since the late '70s, over two million babies
have been killed by abortion. The potential of over two million Canadians
will never be known, at a time when there have been denials of a massive
brain export. At a time when questions are being asked about a sufficient
tax base to support aging baby boomers.
It started with abortion. It's headed towards physician-assisted suicide,
and the withholding and withdrawing of life support. Yes, this is all
about values ... the wrong kind. What a sad legacy - hardly the "just
society" Trudeau promised.
Gerry Brosso
Gananoque, Ont.
Trudeau II
The contributions of Pierre Trudeau to the preborn baby death industry
in the name if women's rights have been well documented in your informative
journal.
When I think of this man, what I recall firstly is his proclamation of
his love for Canada - this from a man who turned his back on his country
during its time of greatest need, World War II. While his contemporaries
went overseas to fight the murderous Nazi regime in Europe, many being
seriously injured or killed, he stayed behind, preferring others to do
his freedom-fighting for him.
Next, I think of his admiration for an atheistic communist, a butcher
from Cuba, as he raised his arm and shouted "Viva Castro." At the same
time, he had nothing but disdain for a good, decent man, U.S. President
Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become, as predicted
by those who studied it in 1982, a set of nonsensical loopholes behind
which criminals have been able to avoid accountability for their transgressions.
The most prominent example of this was the horrendous R. vs. Askov decision
of about twelve years ago, by our unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court
of Canada. This decision permitted many thousands of accused persons,
many charged with serious crimes (rape, murder, robbery and the like)
to walk away, because their trials had been unduly delayed. No priority
was given to the public's right to be protected and demand accountability
from these people.
Talk to the victims of serious, unpunished crimes about Mr. Trudeau's
Charter. Countless thousands of criminals in Canada owe a debt of gratitude
to Mr. Trudeau for their ability to victimize innocent people and then
give the Trudeau "Finger" with impunity to those who try to bring them
to justice. The harm he wrought upon this country is incalculable. May
God have mercy on his soul, indeed.
Larry Wood
Bowmanville, Ont.
Death penalty I
Re: Frank Fohr's letter against capital punishment in the July 2000 Interim.
As a Christian who belongs to a Protestant Church that supports capital
punishment for the hardened criminal (that is, a criminal who shows no
sign of remorse or penance), I take exception to these remarks and feel
they must be addressed.
There are many sensitive issues that are a point of contention between
Christians and pro-lifers. Many Protestants do not share all that the
pro-life movement stands for; however, we still are working very hard
for the pro-life cause. For example, birth control, involvement in social
matters, and fund-raising are also issues that non-Catholics have difficulty
dealing with. These are very divisive and some have caused serious problems
in the past, even threatening to splinter the pro-life movement.
We must rise above these differences if our main goal is the protection
of the unborn, the elderly and the handicapped. To threaten to stop supporting
the movement because of these differences is to try force everyone to
think alike. God's children come in many different flavours, and divergent
views will always be present. We certainly cannot think along denominational
lines if we are to succeed.
We as Christians must do all we can to stop the most hideous social injustice
that has occurred in the last 100 years. It will only escalate as societies
helpless will fall prey to the culture of death. So I pray for more understanding
and cooperation among us all, and less idealism. God bless all who support
and work for pro-life.
Cliff Pyle
Regina
Death penalty II
I would like to thank Bill Whatcott of Regina for his letter in the August
issue of The Interim. In his letter Mr. Whatcott said, "I disagree with
[the] assessment that to be pro-life you have to support gun-control legislation
and be opposed to the death penalty for convicted murderers."
I agree with Mr. Whatcott's comments entirely. When I first saw Frank
Fohr's letter, I was so upset that I just couldn't reply immediately.
What caused me to go ballistic was the sentence: "How can these individuals
possibly be called pro-lifers in a holistic sense?" The arrogance of this
statement makes me livid.
This is the pacifist-leftist-seamless garment (of Cardinal Bernardin)
side of the pro-life movement speaking. I often get this from my own faith
- Roman Catholicism - which until recent times supported the state's right
to execute convicted murderers who have been convicted under fair circumstances.
If being in favour of capital punishment makes me a second-class pro-lifer,
so be it. If there is ever a vote or movement to purge from the pro-life
movement those in favour of it, that's fine with me. There is an arrogance
about some opponents of capital punishment that gets under my skin, that
infers they are morally superior to those who take an opposite view on
this topic.
Bill Johnston
Halifax
Religious arguments
If Prof. Charles Rice believes that pro-lifers should adopt the view "that
the only coherent basis for affirming absolute rights in the human person
is that he is an immortal creature made in the image and likeness of God,"
how will pro-lifers be able to persuade pro-choicers who do not believe
in God? ("Law professor a firm ‘no exceptions' pro-lifer," Sept. 2000
Interim).
If we pro-lifers rely on such religious arguments, then there is no hope
we will be able to convince atheists or members of other traditions that
the preborn human being is deserving of life. Certainly, religious arguments
can be put forward when discussing abortion with religious people, and
especially Christians. It blows my mind to think that any Christian could
believe abortion is a woman's right, and religious arguments are certainly
valid when proclaiming the pro-life message to these pro-choice Christians.
But such arguments will be irrelevant to someone who does not believe
that a person is an "immortal creature made in the image and likeness
of God."
There are many non-believers who believe killing innocent human life is
wrong. If they believe that murder of a born human is wrong without relying
on concepts of God and immortality, there is no reason they can't be persuaded
that the preborn human is also deserving of life. Of course, it may be
harder to convince a non-believer than a Christian because we have one
less argument we can rely upon (the religious argument) in our arsenal
of arguments, but it can be done using logic, science, and ethics.
As Christians, our belief in immortality and God relies on faith. As such,
any attempt to use such a faith-based argument on a person who does not
share our faith will be futile. But what we, as Christians and others
of faith, do have to aid us in the battle against abortion is prayer.
Let's not forget to use it. For no matter how logical and scientific and
truthful and ethical our arguments are, there will be those pro-choicers
whose hearts will be softened only by the healing power of prayer.
Barbara McAdorey
Kemptville, Ont.
Why attack pro-lifers?
Re: the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Presumably
this organization is made up of people who are concerned about the safety
of animals of all kinds. Should a case arise, as unfortunately it does,
of some wacko mistreating a dog or a cat, would it make sense to immediately
point the finger of blame at individual members of the SPCA, as well as
the group as a whole?
There is another group of people, myself included, who are known as pro-life,
dedicated to the protection of human life. Why then are we labelled guilty
when some deranged person attacks an abortionist? That doesn't make sense
either. Pro-life means in favour of life - any life.
We are anti-abortion because we are pro-life, and abortion has as its
sole objective to destroy human life. No matter what procedure is employed,
it is intended to kill an innocent, helpless human being.
Our Canadian political leaders bleat platitudes about Canada's greatest
resources, its people, while millions are spent annually to pay for the
extinction of said resources, and to subsidize the rent for the facilities
used in the process.
J.J. Delaney
Cobden, Ont. |
