What do you think? Brick over the head?

A new pro-life/anti-abortion campaign is starting in Canada. It will feature graphic images of aborted children on billboards and on the sides of trucks. I have argued against this type of activism in this space before, because I think that (a) people are repulsed more by the images than by what caused the depicted scene and (b) it alienates women and men who have sought and procured abortions. I think the television adverts for the pregnancy crisis centres that the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons fund in BC are much more effective, as they appeal to a person's sense of remorse and regret, lingering pain from an abortion, and offer a means to reconciliation and proper counselling. I even think the movie 'Knocked Up', which was rude and raunchy, did more for the pro-life cause than any projectile plastic baby or graphic image has done in the last 30 years.

You can find more info on this campaign at Life Site News.

I found this article particularly interesting in light of my recent posts on the pro-life movement.

Calgary Bishop Cites Graphic Images for Withdrawal of Support for Prominent Pro-life Group

By Hilary White

CALGARY, May 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In 2005 when the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) was preparing to move to Calgary, the group that had met with remarkable successes across the country did not expect to lose the support of the Catholic bishop who is arguably the most outspoken on life and family issues.

CCBR has been immensely successful as a pioneer in Canada of the use of large graphic images of aborted children juxtaposed with other forms of historical genocide. The displays, called the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), erected at university campuses and similar settings are accompanied by trained volunteers who discuss the issues with passers by. The group now plans to bring the GAP to the next level with trucks rolling the images down the highways during commuter rush hours.

But in February this year, over a year after the group’s arrival in Calgary, Bishop Fred Henry released a letter to all his parishes, school boards and Knights of Columbus chapters saying he was “withdrawing all support” from the group, objecting to their use of graphic images of abortion, the central aspect of CCBR’s work.

Stephanie Gray, executive director of CCBR, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com saying they are disappointed with the bishop’s position.

When the group first met with Bishop Henry, Gray said he praised their work in general but “expressed reservations on graphic images.” She said, “He didn’t embrace us but he didn’t forbid Catholics to get involved.”

The Bishop, she said, was “uneasy” and thought the approach did “some harm” but “recognized the morality of the strategy.” Gray and CCBR took this statement as indicating that there is nothing morally objectionable about the GAP approach and began contacting local parishes and schools.

Henry’s position has apparently hardened, however. In his February 14th letter, while he praised the group’s “strong, clear and articulate presentations on behalf of life,” the bishop wrote that the GAP violated the moral principle that “the end...does not justify the means.”

He wrote, “In no way may these pictures be construed as healing, nor can the project be described as ‘tough love’ and I am not in favour of this kind of pedagogy. It is not good news and in my opinion does more harm than good to the pro-life cause.”

Gray said that although the bishop’s letter has not yet cost the group any financial supporters, it has hurt them. “So far, all the emails we have received have been in favour of us and expressing deep disappointment in Bishop Henry,” she said. However, Gray said that the group has lost speaking opportunities in one school and at one parish.

Perhaps worse, shortly after the letter was released, the diocesan post-abortion healing ministry, Project Rachel, refused to meet with Gray’s colleague, Jose Ruba and Gray was removed from the Diocesan Life Education Committee. Both groups and the parish cited the bishop’s letter.

Gray said, “Those are only the things we know about. We don’t know how many more people there are in parishes who might have been interested in us, who are now being put off.”

The success of GAP can be measured by the dramatic increases in calls and visits by pregnant women, often students, to local crisis pregnancy centres in areas where the displays have appeared. But the fact that the photos have arguably saved lives, does not stop them from regularly coming under attack, frequently most vociferously from fellow pro-life activists.

She told LifeSiteNews.com that although Bishop Henry denied CCBR the opportunity of answering his objections before the letter was distributed, the group’s website has been adjusted to answer them.

The 'A-word'

The United States has the 'n-word'. Canada has the 'a-word'. In a very surprising National Post article, columnist Anne Marie Owens discusses why, when and how the public abortion debate in Canada never got started. At Catholic Explorers, contributor Mary Anne picks up on the article and the lack of debate. It's an excellent post (actually two) which should be read by every leathernecked pro-lifer.

While I don't necessarily agree that Canadians are afraid of the abortion issue because of its divisivness, I think there is some truth to it. Many Canadians simply do not like to talk about serious things. I don't know why that it is, but its the current status quo. Actually, the current status quo is that when and if a particularly pernicious and troubling issue like abortion is raised, you will either be yelled at by a lunatic abortionist or a radical right-to-lifer.

So in the wake of this, my wife, my mother and I were discussing how we should begin to revitalize some elements of the pro-life movement. I for one think a very good place to start would be to remove any 'abortion is murder' placard, quote or whatever from our arsenal. Why? Because the discussion is no longer about whether or not it is human life or if it is not human life. Science has emphatically proven on several occassions since abortion was legalized in Canada that human life begins at conception. As much as it pains me to say it, people who procure abortions are usually well aware that it is akin to murder. For the pregnant woman, it is usually a utilitarian decision; for the pro-choice movements, it is a rights-based decision. When was the last time you even hear a pro-abortionist say 'Well, we don't really know when it becomes life anyway, so best to err on the side of the mother'? And moreover, if a woman has an abortion, is she going to react positively to a placard which reads 'Abortion: 1 Dead, 1 Wound'?

The same goes for the graphic images. Showing people images of destroyed babies, for whatever reason, puts people in shell-shock mode and they simply turn their minds off. It's not even that difficult to realize - soldiers, doctors, anyone who views extremely graphic pictures of dead humans simply depersonalizes the image and pushes it to the fartherest corner of their mind. What the pro-life movement seems to be discovering is that it is the images and videos of children in the womb at various stages that are the most effective. The very successful crisis pregnancy certains do not 'win over' pregnant women by showing them images of tiny, dismembered and bloodied people.

Now this is not to say that the murder rhetoric and the use of graphic images should never be employed. Rather, I think that there are certain occassions when such plain terms and shocking pictures must be used. We shouldn't forget about the horrors of abortion or shy away from informing others about them, but we should use the utmost discretion to ensure that our message is received properly. How much more attractive is it when people are for something instead of against it?

(A little guy at 17 weeks)

More on Catholics and the American Supreme Court

The extra-smart Robert Miller weighs in at First Things on the growing trend to point out that 5 of the assenting judges in the Gonzales v. Carthart decision are practicing Catholics. Miller takes issue mainly with what he sees as the trend beneath the trend, the trend that is to entirely dismiss the opinions and decisions of others, rather than engaging them, on the mere basis that they do not agree with your own opinions and decisions.

There's a lot of that going on these days, and Miller is right on point when he calls this trend out as the real culprit, rather than anti-Catholicism, which by the way is a growing phenomenon in the West once again. Up here in the wild and wintery climes of Canada, we socially conservative and Christian folk are used to such dismissals-sans-debate. The perfect example of course is the non-debate which 'occurred' during the same-sex summer of 2005. Perfectly ordinary Canadians like myself were simply told that a debate had occurred and the issue was settled and closed. Where, who, how and when were not acceptible questions - the debate had happened and the issue was closed. Nothing to see here, folks.

And so it is with the PBA ban in the US. Pro-choice commentators have spent little energy actually discussing the procedure, probably because they spent all than enery in 2003 during Congressional discussion on the ban. Back then it was shown to the entire nation that no scientific or moral evidence exists which necessitates the availability of PBA. So perhaps that defeat is in the mind of pro-choicers when they voice their disgust to the Carthart decision, and hence the lack of discussion.

But anyway, I still think it's an interesting phenomenon. The pro-choice comments, with precious few exceptions, have instead run along these lines: The ban is wrong because it goes against the unlimited abortion license and anyone who disagrees with that is wrong. Why? Because abortion is sacrosanct and modern woman requires its availability. Paint me unconvinced.

Those Damn Catholic Judges on the Supreme Court

It's starting.

5 of the Supreme Court Justices who voted to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion happened to all be Catholic. Yes - Andrew Kennedy, Catholic (who authored the majority opinion); John Roberts, Catholic; Antonin Scalia, Catholic; Clarence Thomas, Catholic; Sam Alito, Catholic. You know what that means?

-----------

It will be interesting to see how the American public reacts to the decision of Obama, Clinton and Edwards to attack the ban on partial-birth abortion, rather than at the very least attempt to empathize with the 2/3's of Americans who, if polls are worth anything, support the ban. This has forced these guys to go on the attack/defensive for their Culture of Death beliefs much earlier than their strategizers had probably expected.

Partial-birth abortion is not illegal in Canada. There is no ban on any abortion no matter the health of the baby or the stage of the pregnancy. But I daresay that a 'success' of sorts like this for the pro-life movement in the US emboldens the pro-life movement in Canada. It's just that while Americans are discussing the implications of the Carthart decision, Canadians aren't discussing the pro-abortion campaign being waged in Nova Scotia. That's a big problem. I think most Canadians are against abortion, it's just that so few of them understand the situation in Canada. They seem to think that we have similar restrictions and rights in Canada and we don't.

More about Portugal...

'Omnis animal post coitum triste est'

To call the full legalization of abortion a tragedy is to engage in severe understatement. Portugal, whose birth rates are well below replacement level already, has now virtually all but committed itself to the historical waste bucket along with the rest of Western Europe. Men and women of good faith will continue to fight this and live their lives according to the Word, but so many will fall away. I suppose that's just how it usually is.

I read this morning that a massive, 3-story abortion clinic will be built in Lisbon as soon as the abortion bill is passed in full. It goes to show that abortion has never been about improving the 'plight' of women, but of making money off of death.

What it's interesting (or increasingly banal, depending on your level of apathy) is how virulently anti-life laws are made and passed. A small but well-supported group lobby politicians, the media supports, no public discussion occurs (and if it does, it is rushed or simply ignored) and the law is passed through chambers to which any attempt to stop it will surely fail. Portugal, it seems, has borrowed heavily off the Canadian-Spanish model of cultural destruction.

Portugal Falls...

It was announced today that despite the failure of the pro-abortion public referendum in Portugal last month, the parliament has passed a pro-abortion bill which effectively demolishes the previous restrictions. The bill will be pressed into law by the end of a 20 day period, subject to the Prime Minister's, pro-abortion Jose Socrates, signature.

90 or so years ago, Mary appeared and promised that the faith would always live on in Portugal. But Mary didn't specify how large or how vigourous that faith would be.