Important to Note

I feel it very important to stress the fact that this blog is not intended to incite hatred or violence against current people involved in religious groups. I have some friends who are religious and I do not hate them for their beliefs, and there are many kind people involved in religious groups. What I have a problem with is the way in which religion holds so much power today in society, on the belief that it is god-inspired and therefore above regular law, such as churches denying people their equal rights at marriage, not having to pay taxes, requiring separate schools, and so on. Furthermore, the churches which are more liberal (such as the United Church), while I am very happy that they are changing to be less oppressive, I must laugh at such attempts to change with the times as it is a sign that the religion is very much one that is created and established by humans alone, and not some divine almighty creator. How can the church claim to be based off of the Bible if they can pick and choose which beliefs to follow? Either way they are still connected to something that is very racist and sexist, and are not needed.

There are many Christian groups which are around the world trying to help those in need in developing countries. This is not a "point" for Christianity but for humanity. There are also many groups doing the same thing without dragging along Bibles with them. To be an atheist is not to be without morals. Christianity did not invent morals such as not killing or stealing; these existed long before, and even still are not carried out by all Christians today. This is not to say that all atheists are moral people, but I do not think it right that Christianity become a synonym for morality and good.

One more point, as I previously stated, this blog is not intended to be attack against Christianity alone but rather a critique of all established religions/cult which claim to have been inspired by god or some other mythical being. Christianity is one of the more popular religions in North America and the one which I am most familiar with, so the majority of the posts will be dealing with that religion. However, I sincerely do not mean for this to be used by other religions to attack Christianity and to claim superiority over it, because all religions err in the similar ways, as they are all *human*

The Vatican and the Christian Family

I found this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/world/main1687068.shtml) on the CBS News website summarizing a document released by the Vatican in June 2006 declaring that "Family is under attack" due to gay marriage, birth control, and artificial insemination. I have never understood why the Vatican has such an obsession with sex (read the Vatican's Declaration on Sexual Ethics for a laugh) perhaps it is because no one in the administration is supposed to be having any sex that they feel the need to talk about it incessantly. I also have never understood how two men or two women being happy together can represent such a threat to the Vatican. Either way, no pope or cardinal has any right to declare that these are the reasons that the traditional family is being "destroyed". In the New Testament, Jesus takes full responsibility for this (capitalized words are how they are found in the text):

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:34-37)

What traditional family is the Pontifical Council for the Family discussing then? How can they argue that the modern world is destroying the family, when their supposed leader claims that to love him or god requires sacrificing the family?

Change of Venue

This blog is now reorienting its focus on the larger issues of religion. Religion is undeniably man-made (and I do mean "male" most often), and as such is subject to horrible human error and prejudices. I do not mean to direct attention to any one religion, however as Christianity is more the dominant religion in Canada (including its various sects and divisions) it will most likely receive more criticism than others. This is not really too far a stretch from the initial topic, as it is religion that provides most of the outcry against abortion, and from what I've observed it is in the terms of religion that information on the subject is manipulated.

Anti-Abortion Protest

So today was the first Sunday of October so it was the "Life Chain" where religious groups go out and stand by a main road with their generic photocopied signs stating "Abortion hurts women" and "Abortion kills babies." My main issue with this was inescapable this year because of course the person protesting in front of my house had her 3 year old daughter with her. I asked some of the people protesting what their opinion on having children at the protest was. For the most part these people were very kind and easy to talk to (minus the one man in a lawn chair muttering "not even jesus will save your soul") but none really presented any original ideas. As for their opinions on children at the protests, many admitted to having their children there or in past years, and one said the only reason her younger children weren't there was because there wasn't enough room in the van because she took her older children and their friends with them. One said that her four year old granddaughter "knows" what abortion is, that it means "the mommy has a baby growing in her tummy and that she has decided to kill it." I asked if the granddaughter was curious as to why some women would seek this option, and she said that the question hadn't been raised but when it is in the future, she would inform her granddaughter that "sometimes a girl isn't ready for a baby, but that it is important to know that she can go through with the pregnancy and give the baby to someone who really wants it." Both this grandmother and a young mother agreed that young children cannot fully grasp the concept but should be informed of "Christ's love for the unborn."

When I asked why they were out protesting today I got varied but similar answers. One woman said she was there to "bear witness to christ." Another said to "spread Jesus's love" and another said "to inform." I asked one woman why she agreed with her sign, "Abortion hurts women" and she said that she feels some women seek abortions without knowing their full options and are hurt afterwards.

What was most interesting, was the students' responses, which ranged from indifference to anger. One house held a sign saying "Pro-CHoice" since the protestors were standing directly in front of the house. I was told though that the sign in it's entirety said "Pro-Choice...Bitches" so it may not have been taken seriously. A lot of cars drove by and honked, but these could have been honks of approval or anger. There were many who shouted out windows at these protesters telling them to go away. Most of those with signs ignored this and kept smiles on their faces. I wanted to place a "Pro-Choice" sign in my window but I couldn't find a marker, and was also in a rush to work or I would have spent much more time talking to them, and also to the students in obvious disagreement.

One thing that went across my mind was how I wanted to tell the protesters to get off my lawn because while I agree with their right to protest, I don't want it to seem anyone living on this property agrees with their opinion. However, the person sitting on my lawn was a girl no older than 5 with her mom, holding a sign saying "Abortion kills babies". How could I accuse a 5 yr old of trespassing? But if you think of it this way - her mother obviously thinks she is old enough to comprehend abortion and hold a fully developed opinion on it, like any other activist she must be ready to deal with the consequences. Not that it really needs to be said, but I did not even attempt to press charges but it was an interesting idea nonetheless.

London Birthright

I started trying to contact various organizations today to get some different opinions, as well as to gain some knowledge on the different options out there. I thought that since most churches operate on Sundays that today would be a good day to talk to the church leaders and organizers. However, when I showed up at the United Church this afternoon all the doors were locked. I originally planned to show up for the service at 10:30 and then talk to the pastor/priest afterwards. However, I know from when I have gone to church with my grandparents that the pastor is normally occupied with congregants questions and discussions afterwards and I did not feel it right to take up his/her time being a first time visitor. I guess I waited too long though, and will have to try during the week.

Since I could not talk to anyone in person today, I decided to start some research and what I found today is actually very upsetting. I typed in “London Ontario + abortion” for Google, and the first link to show was for Birthright (www.birthright.org). The website advertises this group’s services as “We are here to help you in making a decision about your pregnancy” and “We want you to know the many options available to you.” They also claim to offer “Non-judgmental and caring advice.” The website also says “Birthright is a fully independent organization, not affiliated with any church or public agency.” All this sounds really good as they offer a 24 hour helpline for pregnant girls. HOWEVER, when I called the helpline and made sure to immediately inform the woman that I was not in crisis and did not want to tie up a line that someone else may need, I asked if there was another line I could call for some answers for an assignment, the woman gave me the number to a Right to Life clinic.

Right to Life (http://www.right2life.ca/) is an organization devoted to criminalizing abortion and is the group that organizes the "Life Chain" which is the anti-abortion protesters. Maybe, I am missing something, but if a group claims to not be affilatted with any church or public agency, how can they give me this number?? Furthermore, when you look into the Birthright website, under services they provide, it quickly becomes obvious which way their counsellors are likely to push these girls towards. They provide "maternity and baby clothes", as well as information on "prenatal development", "adoption", and "pregnancy and childbirth." Nowhere is abortion even mentioned on this website.

Catholics for Choice

I came across this website tonight: http://www.catholicsforchoice.ca/

I find it very interesting.. one of the main issues I have with the anti-abortion movement is their means of protesting. I believe that it is every person's right to make their opinion heard but I don't agree with these protesters using their young children to hold sign like "abortion kills babies" when I seriously doubt these three year olds have formed their own well-informed decision on the topic. Every time I see this I want to ask one of the kids if they know what abortion truly is and why some women seek them. Maybe I am generalizing but I cannot see each one of these parents sitting their toddlers down and explaining to them this situation.

This group I found includes this in their "about us" section:

"The Toronto Catholic District School Board, following the Vatican's lead, has decided to end support to UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund) at Halloween. Instead of allowing trick-or-treating children to carry UNICEF boxes, the Toronto Catholic School Board agreed to allow the children to carry boxes to collect money for "Aid to Women". CFFC-Canada denounced this move, and exposed "Aid to Women" as an anti-abortion group whose members harass and intimidate girls and women who try to enter a legal abortion clinic in downtown Toronto. The name "Aid to Women" is misleading and without the information provided by CFFC-Canada, people donating at Halloween may have thought that the money was to go to a women's shelter. Indeed many principals and teachers at Catholic elementary schools were of the same mistaken belief."


I'm glad that there are people willing to speak out against the main beliefs held by their religion, even when coming from the top (i.e. the Vatican). It is important for me to remember while I work on this project not to see people only as the group they belong to and to know that not everyone in a group shares the uniform ideas. I have to admit though that I am a little skeptical of a Catholic group being fully pro-choice but from what I have seen on this website it seems to be a good and interesting step forward for the church, even if it is just a select few from such a large and conservative religion.

Abortion in the News

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080930.ELECTIONABORTION30/TPStory/?query=abortion

So with time in between classes, I decided to look up what there is recently in the news about abortion. Just today, an article was in the Globe and Mail about Stephen Harper promising not to reopen the abortion debate if he is re-elected. "He said then that he would not introduce legislation amending the abortion law but that Conservative MPs had a right to their own beliefs, leaving the door open for private member's bills." His spokesperson, Kory Teneycke, adds to this: "We can't prevent private member's bills from reaching the floor...But the government would not support them."

http://www.thestar.com/article/508645

The Toronto Star goes into more detail on this matter, including the fact that Harper wants the bill proposed by Ken Epp, The Unborn Victims of Crime Act to be rewritten. What this entails, I am not sure, but it is important to note that while Harper says he does not wish to pass anything affecting the abortion laws, he wants this one rewritten but not scrapped all together. For those who don't know, a basic summary of this bill is that it is intended to protect the unborn in crimes, so that those who murder a pregnant woman are charged with 2 counts of murder. When I read up on this, it seems that both counts of murder would be served together so I don't understand what the point of this is. There is a clause that states it would not affect abortion laws, but once the "unborn" is considered a person who can be murdered, how can the abortion laws stand?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=849260

The National Post has a lot less optimistic view on this as it's article on this topic is called "Abortion ban in Tory plan." In this article, Gilles Duceppe states that he believes the Conservatives will try to criminalize abortion on the basis of Epp's bill. In this full article, only one line is given to state Harper's stance: "During an Ottawa news conference yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government has no plans to reopen the abortion debate or change Canada's abortion laws."

United Church of Canada

I found this on the official United Church of Canada website: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/poli

cies/1980/c511

2. Abortion

1. We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils. Therefore, abortion is acceptable only when, after careful consideration, the medical, social, and/or economic situation makes it the most responsible alternative.
2. The previous law, which required a hospital therapeutic abortion committee to authorize an abortion was unjust in principle and unworkable in practice.
3. We do not support "abortion on demand." We believe that abortion should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor, who should earnestly consider their understanding of the particular situation permitting the woman to bring to bear her moral and religious insights into human life in reaching a decision through a free and responsive exercise of her conscience

They also include this:

1. Massive Contraception Program

1. A child has a right to be wanted, so that it may have some assurance of this essential element in human development. Bringing unwanted children into the world is irresponsible.
2. Thus, family planning, including vasectomy and tubal ligation is Christian duty. Our Canadian society has to make every effort to ensure that contraception is the only completely acceptable form of birth control. Some practice of abortion is inevitable for the next few years while contraceptive techniques are imperfect and contraceptive ignorance is widespread, but the aim of all education, research and social pressure must be always to reduce the incidence of abortion and to promote effective contraception.
3. To anticipate the use of abortion as a form of birth control and therefore neglect to practise contraception is medically and morally deplorable and socially expensive. Such intentional use of abortion by individuals or governments is morally wrong.

That was from 1980 and they have expanded on the idea of the importance of sexual education in a more recent edict/declaration in 1990: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1990/a111

"WHEREAS prevention of abortion is best accomplished by the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, the aim of education, research and social action must always be to promote effective contraception and thus reduce the incidence of abortion;"

I think it's amazing that a religious group is able to step forward and say that even though they don't necessarily agree with abortion but understand that they cannot judge every situation or declare it absolutely evil. However, rather than just saying "yes, go ahead with the abortion" they are stressing the importance on sexual education so then contraceptives can be used more effectively. They even include the fact that they want better access to abortion clinics in Canada:

"WHEREAS many provinces have a high incidence of teenage pregnancy and Saskatchewan has one of the highest;

WHEREAS accessibility to abortion is inadequate in certain geographical areas in Canada as evidenced by:

• Prince Edward Island provides no access to abortion services;
• Newfoundland: one doctor in St. John's performs abortions;
• New Brunswick: no services north of Moncton;
• Nova Scotia: one Halifax hospital performs over 80 per cent of abortions;
• Quebec: 70-80 per cent of abortions are done in Montreal;
• Ontario: access concentrated in the southern cities;
• Manitoba: services available primarily in Winnipeg;
• Saskatchewan: women outside Saskatoon have little chance to obtain abortions;
• Alberta: abortions done in Edmonton, a few in Calgary, and fewer still in Lethbridge;
• British Columbia: situation precarious because of anti-abortionists elected to hospital boards; and

WHEREAS abortion is a medical act and the provinces are required to provide medical services according to federal standards of comprehensiveness and availability; and

WHEREAS under the Canada Health Act, the federal government can withhold health transfer payments from provinces which fail to provide medical services on a comprehensive, accessible, universal basis:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 33rd General Council:

1. urge the Government of Canada under the Canada Health Act to monitor the provinces' provision of contraception and abortion services in the light of federal adequacy standards of comprehensiveness and availability; and if found inadequate to pressure the provincial governments to bring these services up to Canada Health Act standards;
2. urge all conferences to request their provincial governments to provide adequate contraceptive and abortion education, counselling and services; and to report on their actions and results to the 34th General Council"

Not only are they acknowledging freedom of choice, they are trying to make a difference in how the government regulates abortion as well and are asking for more involvement to better provide this service to Canadian girls. I do not agree with government and religion mixing but I think this way, the United Church can be seen like any other activist or lobby group, not fighting for Church rights, but for women's rights.

abortion = lynching and holocaust??

Something that really upsets is how different "pro-life" groups attempt to scare people away from abortions by associating it with horrible events in history where large groups of people were killed. I just came across one on the Pregnant Pause website: http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/lynch.htm
This group compares the number of lynchings from 1882 to 1968 (3446) to the number of abortions chosen by African-Americans from 1973 to 1994 (approx. 10,000,000). This is an insult to those who were violently murdered because of racism and also to these women who have chosen to abort for various reasons. In one of my classes this semester we had to look at images of lynchings that happened in the 20th century in the South. Painful to look at, these were clearly crimes of violence and hatred with the intent to oppress and destroy an entire group of human beings who had lives and families of their own. Comparing a lynching to an abortion is disgusting. Although I cannot claim that all abortions are chosen for reasons that all could agree are "legitimate", abortion clinics do not exist to wipe out an entire group within a population out of hatred and ignorance. However, I do know that there were eugenics movements when birth control was becoming popular in the States to sterilize African Americans and I think this is an atrocity. It is not right though to claim that abortions today have anything to do with a racist movement. One very important fact that is being left out is that these African-American fetus which are aborted are happening because the woman (who is most likely African-American, unless this is just from the father's side) chose to do so. Lynchings happened to African-Americans by ignorant white southern people. Clearly the second is one group doing violence against another, and the first is a conscious decision, not to wipe out one's own group.

A more common comparison is to the Holocaust, which is equally disgusting. On the London, Ontario Right 2 Life website (http://www.right2life.ca/aboutus_aims.shtml) under "Our Aims and Objectives" there is a quote from John Mallon. "Why should the slaughter of six million Jews and countless others qualify as genocide but not the slaughter of 45 million unborn children?" According to John Mallon's personal website (http://www.johnmallon.net/) he has been a Catholic writer for the last 25 years. I can see how he makes the comparison, if you go with the belief that the moment the sperm meets the egg there is a human being. He is claiming that neither the fetus nor the Jews were able to defend themselves and were subjected to another's desire to kill them. However, these people who were killed in the Holocaust were living and breathing human beings with their own lives, their own dreams, their own ideas, and family and loved ones. They were tortured in numerable and horrifying ways. They were targeted for being Jews. There are numerous reasons why women seek abortions but to wipe out an entire group such as the Jewish community is not one of them. This is an insult to the memory of those killed in Death Camps, as well as to the women and doctors who have made the decision to abort. Mallon seems to think that every person who chooses or assists in abortion is another Hitler, capable of killing millions of conscious human beings. How can people even make this comparison?!