Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!





Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Fostering

Fostering? I could never!

“Oh, I could never foster. I could never part with kids after having them in my home for a while. It would break my heart. Fostering is not for me.” So many times we’ve had people say things like this to us. It can be a bit awkward. I mean… we foster… and we have for years. What’s that say about us and our hearts? You think that we don’t grow attached? Or that goodbyes are easy? Or that there’s no risk to our emotions? It’s not like we are so uniquely cut out for the task. Fostering is hard work and time consuming. It stretches you and can be taxing on home life. But it’s also beautiful in that it teaches you to love a stranger; to embrace a needy child. In essence, it’s the core of the gospel at work: to love a stranger. As former strangers now loved by God, wouldn’t He in turn want us to love strangers? It seems pretty important to Jesus in light of eternity. “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt. 25:44-46). Imagine… making time to care for the needs of strangers can affect our eternal destiny! I wonder if people who say, “I could never do that,” are also covering up a bit of a fear of the unknown, or attempting to disqualify themselves, or maybe just justifying not interrupting their life with other kids. Whatever the reasoning, be sure to talk about it with God. Maybe the timing is not right for you, or you have circumstances that are not conducive to fostering at this time. That’s ok. But for the most part fostering is something everyone can participate in, especially if you confess Christ and keep in mind what is important to Him. Taking a huge risk There’s a point where you have to set aside your worries and fears (says me the worrywart) to not focus on the hurt of goodbyes, but instead to think about the joy of hellos. To think about welcoming a child (yes, the least of these) into your home. With thousands of kids in need of care right now, there’s opportunity for you to open your door, and welcome one of them into your heart and your home. And yes, opening the door of your home, means opening your heart. And opening your heart means taking a huge risk… to love and to care for someone. When we love and care for someone, we risk that someday we may have to part ways, and say goodbye. But, better to have loved and feel the pain of separation, than not to have loved at all. We were made for relationship. We welcome people into our lives all the time: a new birth, a new friend, a new neighbor, a new wife, a new husband, a new family member, a new community, and maybe a new foster child. And whenever we welcome someone in, we know that at some point we’ll have to say goodbye. Kids grow up and move out, we might travel around, we might leave the country, and any one of us might die at any time. We part ways with people all the time. Life is full of goodbyes, and sometimes heart-wrenching goodbyes that leave us marked forever. Love is like that – it’s risky. And while we live on this side of heaven, love will be severed at some point. But as in any relationship, we don’t focus on the goodbyes. We focus on the time we get to be together, and then make the best of it. So, if you’re still thinking you are not even slightly prepared to foster because you can’t handle the pain of separation, I beg to differ. We face separation in all relationships. And if its fear of the unknown or not wanting interruption, well, that can be challenged. What if your life up to this point has been the training ground for you to take in someone new, to take in a stranger to love? What if life training for you included being stretched in new ways through fostering? Our story My wife and I have six children. They’re all grown up now. All of them except for one have moved out of the house. We often got strange looks when traveling about as family. People would ask, “Are these all your kids?” (No, we just collect them as we go.) “Yes, they’re all our kids.” “Must be a lot of work!” “Well, they didn’t all come at once and they all do help each other.” “Same woman?” “Yes, same woman.” And people would walk away in amazement. One guy pulled me aside and said, “Must’ve cost you a fortune!” I responded, “But the rewards far outweigh the costs.” Contrary to today’s cultural ignorance, large families are a wonderful thing. Kids are not a “cost,” they are a reward, a gift. And you raise them to contribute. Not only to society, but to the Kingdom of God. Despite some bickering and some fighting once in a while, there is a beauty to forming your own little family community that interacts with the broader community. Family is the place we learn how to live together as disciples of Jesus, how to love, forgive, grow in patience, accommodate, take care of the needs of others, reveal blind spots, and discuss how to live in our crazy world. Family is the training ground from which we shoot forth our kids like arrows into the world to go and make a difference in the name of Jesus. Life can be dreadfully lonely without family. When a couple of our oldest kids moved out of our home, we then had empty bedrooms. We wanted to fill them and invite others into that “family” thing we do, learning to live together as disciples of Jesus. So we thought to foster. Opening our doors to new children meant introducing them to Jesus. No force, just display. We called a family meeting to share with our kids our idea to begin fostering and to inquire of them if they’d be supportive of that. All were in favor (whether moved out or not). One ad, one phone call And then something crazy happened. My wife Joanne saw an ad in the newspaper for Bridgeway Homes, a fostering agency out in Cobourg, Ontario. She called and inquired about fostering. After a number of months of training and inspections, we became an official fostering home for them. But here’s the thing: Bridgeway only ever put out one ad in the Niagara area newspapers. And Joanne was the only one person to respond to it. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Through Bridgeway we began fostering. Numerous children came to stay with us, mostly for respite, so usually it was for one or two weeks at a time. One girl, a young teen, who had experienced a lot of moving around, got approval in mid-November to stay with us over Christmas and into the new year. She had had some deep questions about life that she had unpacked with me in my office and was so content to stay with our family that she was bursting with joy the day she unpacked. “Mark, I get to spend Christmas with you guys! I’m so excited!” Two days later the Children’s Aid stopped by our house when she was at school. They grabbed her stuff, told us they had found a placement for her and had to act quickly, and then went to pick her up from school to take her away. No goodbyes. Man, that hurts. One thing that hurts more than goodbyes, is not having a chance to say goodbye. I was crushed for days. “Mark…. Christmas with you guys….” Yes, fostering can hurt. I always hope that the kids we were blessed to have would be blessed in return for having met us. And then along came AJ, the foster boy we had for seven years. He had no idea of who God was, but after only 4 days with us he was already asking if he could pray. And in less than a month, he was asking my wife and I if he could call us “Mom” and “Dad”. About 3 years ago, when hospitalized, we were told he would die, so we experienced those kinds of goodbyes. But God’s plan was recovery! And now recently, due to increased care needs, he was moved out of our home – another goodbye. Fostering… it’s living, loving, laughing, leaving…. but often lasting. Everyone can participate Remember I said, “fostering is something that everyone can participate in.” I did not say fostering is something that everyone can do (although I think most can). But fostering is something everyone can participate in. This is where “wrap around” is key. If you cannot foster yourself, everyone can help – everyone can wrap support arms around someone who is fostering. You can open your home for visits or respite, you can drop in and help out, you can make a meal for the foster family, you can take foster kids out on trips with your kids, you can support the foster parents, you can offer to drive for outings, you can ask how to be of help, and you can pray for all involved. Dispelling a few excuses But I just can’t. How about talking about it? And also take it to God. List off all your reasons and tell Him why you can’t. It’s not like God will be shocked or overwhelmed. But He may ask you to shift from “I can’t” to “trust Me.” And if you seriously can’t take someone in yourself, find someone who did take a child in and ask how you can be of help, how you can be part of a “wrap around.” I’m too busy. When in life will you not be busy? It’s generally when we are laying on a hospital bed or recovering at home that we finally slow down and realize we’ve been occupying ourselves with a whole lot of “stuff.” And in times we are not occupied, we are preoccupied. We like to busy ourselves! Being busy is what we gravitate to. Often we hear, “So, are you keeping busy?” The challenge for the rest of our life is to create space in our schedules — space in which we allow God to act. Maybe even space for a certain child to enter into. The timing is not right. We can always come up with reasons why the timing is not right. We’re too young. We’re just married. Our family is too big. Our family is too small. We don’t know what to do. The system is too complicated. We’re too old. And the list goes on. Analyze your situation and write down what it is that you think is getting in the way and see if, how, and when the obstacles can be removed. Some might be legitimate, others might be you just making excuses. But do determine a time. Fostering is something that everyone can participate in. I don’t say this to make you feel guilty, I say this to make you think about it. I have shared our experience; yours will be different. Think pro-life Perhaps you’ve never considered that being pro-life is synonymous with being “pro-fostering.” Pro-life means having an open door. If someone didn’t abort as we’ve asked, and now can’t raise their child, it’s logical that a pro-lifer would step up to help. And that may include fostering. But wait, what about all the sign-up requirements for fostering agencies? When they come to assess your home and start asking you about life, simply state what’s right and true and allow the chips to fall where they may. Be shrewd as serpents, innocent as doves. We proclaim truth even in this, and suffer the consequences if need be (or the agencies do if their requirements exclude us). But imagine if fostering agencies had 500 Christian homes in the waiting and it was only one or two silly stipulations getting in the way. That would make it their problem. But you and me would stand ready to serve. Obviously in all circumstances you do not want to jeopardize your own health or family. It’s of no use stepping up to help another child or family only to ruin your own. But just be honest with yourself and your family whether the reasons for avoiding fostering or a fostering “wrap around” are substantial enough to wait for another time. We may set the bar so high for an “ideal time” that it never comes. And we’d say that old line once again, “Fostering? I could never!” No, we don’t want to go there. Remember, these things are of eternal significance. “God sets the lonely in families, he leads out prisoners with singing.” – Ps. 68:6 Mark Wanders lives in Smithville, ON with his wife Joanne. He writes regularly on his blog site: www.theartisanpost.com. Picture at the top is of Mark and AJ, used with permission....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Toronto hospital experiments with artificial wombs

In mid-November, Toronto SickKids Hospital began the first experiments in its new lab, testing the creation of an artificial womb.  In 2017, artificial womb testing succeeded in keeping fetal lambs gestating in “bio bags” for up to 28 days. Lambs surgically removed from their mothers' wombs at 105 to 115 days, were transferred into the bio bags. Scientists from the Philadelphia-based lab claim this experiment showed promise as the first time an artificial womb could maintain fetal and organ development. These tests have been conducted with over 300 lambs. Toronto SickKids Hospital is following on with their own experiment, this time using pigs, not lambs.  Dr. Mike Seed, head cardiologist of the hospital, states that these experiments aim to develop better life support for prematurely born babies. The hope is to simulate a womb that would support continued growth and nurture of the fetus, providing a better chance at life.  If the preborn aren't recognized as human... Now, just because we can do something, doesn’t necessarily mean we should. In the pursuit of scientific advancements, there is a need for scrutiny, especially when it involves interventions that potentially disrupt the natural order established by God, such as the sacred process of childbearing. Of course, the idea that a baby born prematurely at 22 weeks could thrive in an “artificial womb” is appealing. However, can we trust those who evidently have little regard for the sanctity of life to continue their process of experimentation in a way that respects these smallest and most vulnerable of lives? What if it wasn't her body? A recent National Post article explores the idea that advances in this medical technology could impact “abortion rights.” In Canada, pre-born children have no legal status until their first breath. University of Montreal bioethicist Vardit Ravitsky expresses concern about how this could “revolutionize our relationship to pregnancy, reproduction, and women’s place in society.”  Could legislators change abortion policies to remove the pre-born child from the mother to finish gestation inside an artificial womb? Ravitsky warns that having such a womb capable of carrying on an unwanted pregnancy apart from the mother could result in the mother losing the "right to decide that this child will not live.” She poses the questions: “Is the pre-born child considered born when it leaves my body? Is it born when it leaves the artificial womb?”  An important truth that can be highlighted is that inside or outside of the womb (natural or artificial) life begins at conception. Although this bioethicist has a pro-abortion worldview, she strips away the jargon and euphemisms of what abortion is. Ravisky says that when women say they want an abortion they are saying two things: “I don’t want this pregnancy in my body,” and “I don’t want this child to be in the world.” Abortion is not just the removal of pregnancy; it is at the essence the removal of the child from the world in a way that is utterly brutal and destructive to God’s creation.  Not a brave new world Another concern is where this could all lead. The concept of an artificial womb is not new, with Aldous Huxley’s dystopian classic Brave New World exploring the idea over 90 years ago. Huxley warned that separating reproduction from love and family bonds could lead to a less human and more controlled society. Eliminating natural reproduction from the God-ordained male-female process alters the structure of families. This transformation is evident in practices like in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, where same-sex couples are now able to create children, depriving the right for children to have both a mother and a father. The plotline of babies being born inside of incubated bottles now doesn’t seem too far off. As the medical field makes advances that may seem like “preserving” human life, there is a need for discernment. Society should avoid practicing science or legislation that would harm the pre-born. Psalm 127:3-5 says, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!” Photo by Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS15112, used and adapted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

Pro-life legislation attempts in Canada

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective. I'm Alexander Ellison. Since the Morgentaler Decision in 1988 there has been no abortion law in Canada. The Supreme Court struck down the existing law, stating that it hindered equal access to abortion. However, it's essential to note that the Court's decision did not endorse the absence of federal legislation on abortion, or protection for pre-born children. In fact, it affirmed Parliament's right to create new legislation. In response to the Morgentaler Decision, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government attempted to draft a compromise abortion law in 1990. Despite efforts to balance pro-life and abortion advocate perspectives, Bill C-43, which permitted abortion only if a physician deemed it necessary for a woman's health, passed in the House of Commons, but was later defeated in the Senate. Since then, Member of Parliament Cathay Wagantall has championed change by introducing three private member's bills, each aimed at recognizing and upholding the inherent value of human life. Cathay Wagantall: So, I'm Cathay Wagantall and the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville which is a riding along the Manitoba border, a couple hours north of Regina, our capital. It's 42,000 square kilometers and it's rural and I've been a Member of Parliament for eight years now. The first was – we called it Cassie and Molly's Law – protecting pregnant women and their pre-born children. An individual named Jeff from Windsor had reached out. I think at one point in time he had become friends with folks at ARPA Canada. It was actually Mike Schouten who introduced me to the possibility of doing a bill in relation to what happened to Jeff when he lost his partner Cassie who was 7 months pregnant at the time. They weren't together anymore, but they were still in a very good relationship and had named Molly Molly and were ready to raise her together in their homes about a block apart. And was attacked in her home by someone who knew both of them and it was horrific. What Jeff didn't expect, and was thoroughly blown away, was that there was no recognition of Molly. So Cassie and Molly's Law was to protect pre-born children by basically bringing in a law that gave serious criminal charges for also either injuring or taking the life of a pre-born child. That bill used words like "pre-born child" which is in the Criminal Code but not in this context. And so it, of course, raised the angst of the House, well pretty well every other party, who are very very anti- pro-life legislation, and are very pro-abortion. So that's the direction that they wanted to take this bill, which they did. But I was very fortunate that my colleagues all supported it, except for two and one abstained for various reasons. But that being said, it did wake the House up to the fact that there was someone there who was willing to bring those issues to the floor. When I do trade shows or anything like that, I always have petitions. So I would have one on Firearms – I live in rural Saskatchewan – one on palliative care, and one on life issues. And I realized that although people want abortion to be available, they have this idea that it's already a law in Canada and it's minimal. So when I brought forward the next it was a sex-selection abortion bill, that basically should be illegal. And God is really good; He times things often to assist with what He's put you there to do, and at the same time a poll came out that made it clear that in Canada Canadians are not as divided on this issue, is what it said, as honestly, the media and politicians want you to think they are. What it did is it showed that the majority of Canadians want access to abortion, but as you dug deeper with their questions they totally want a law against sex selective abortion, late term abortion, they want more pregnancy counseling centers, not less, and they want doctors to have to share with their patient exactly what the dangers and and potential complications are of this type of surgery, which is not required in Canada. I mean, I've had my gallbladder out; I spent half a day at the hospital being told a number of things, and that does not happen in this case. So I brought it forward and people would come to sign my petitions and they'd go "I believe in access to abortion, I'm a nurse" or whatever, and I'd say "Oh, so you're okay with sex-selective abortion?" and they said "No." And then I explained the dynamics that are in Canada right now, where besides North Korea we're the only country without any laws. And they would sign my petition. So I realized that although was not going to pass in the House, and this is one of the challenges of this area, is that you have to win in different ways until it becomes something that can happen within our government, and because of the way the House is set up right now, the only political party that you can be a part of, that does not insist that you have to be pro-abortion is the Conservative Party. So you know you're not going to win a vote in the House. But it's important that we always keep these things in front of Canadians. I believe that as legislators we have a responsibility to respond to culture, but we are also responsible for shaping what our values are in Canada and this is part of that. So again, of course, the bill didn't pass and it was very vital if you ever want to go and listen to some of the speeches it's very clear that there's a lot of anger, and and an attempt to make those of us that are pro-life look like terrible people. Yeah, it's the House of Commons. But we made headway because across the country people woke up to realize that in Canada we we don't have these laws. As Wagantall mentions with the current political climate it's challenging to get parties with hard stances on abortion to side with pro-life bills. A policy analyst with ARPA who has worked on these pro-life bills explains why she says they take the incremental approach: Anna Nienhuis: Yeah, so we take an incremental approach just because of the legal reality in Canada. Right now there is no abortion law, so there is no legal protection for any pre-born children, and there's this polarized debate that kind of pits the pro-choice and pro-life side against each other, so we work to find common ground where Canadians can agree so that we can protect some pre-born children while we work for that cultural shift to be able to protect them all. This past spring Wagantall had the opportunity to introduce another private member's bill. Cathay Wagantall: I have to admit that after the third election I said, okay, Lord, I'd be okay if I didn't have another private member's bill, and He said no, nope, that's not how it's going to be, so I did get an opportunity again this last time around – number 62 or 63 – and I brought forward the violence against pregnant women act which is similar to Cassie and Molly's law but far more targeted. It didn't bring in any sentencing or anything like that but what it did is said that if an individual has committed this crime and that crime has been recognized by the courts and this person has been found guilty then the judge must consider that a child was also physically harmed or murdered as an aggravating factor and what that means is they absolutely must take that into account when they're sentencing and there's only about a handful of, circumstances where aggravating factors are required, but this is about violence against pregnant women and violence against women is a priority of this government and something that they want to champion that they're about. And, of course, I was able to indicate that well if that's the case then they definitely should be supporting this bill and again they took the same approach they always do, which is attack in the House of Commons. Then the Prime Minister, and a number of women Liberal Members of Parliament did a Twitter attack on me, and of course they tried to make it sound like this is all about abortion. Again, it's a hidden attempt, all that kind of thing. And it was amazing because, right across the country, people responded to that with their comments with saying here's the actual feedback on this bill – it's two sentences long and it's about women who want to have a child – and they really lit into them for taking advantage of this in the way that they did. Now, again, of course it didn't change the vote in the House unfortunately. They're representing – everyone else in the House of Commons is representing – about 16% of Canadians who are on the extreme perspective of abortion at any time for any reason. So it was exciting. It was exciting. Fortunately my leader was very supportive, as was our whole caucus. So we feel like a number of other issues around , and circumstances where this government is offside with Canadians because they're not out there representing the true perspectives, they have their own ideology and their own purposes, and their own attempts to use an issue as a wedge issue, that they're losing the ground to do that. Having a child is the most impressive thing that a human woman can do, is have those children. And there are many women who would love to have children that can't. And we need to, at the very least, continue to push for the fact that this is something on which women are being misled. They're being misled to think that they can't afford or they can't handle it. We're women; we can handle anything. And sometimes a bad choice is made, but that doesn't mean that you have a bad choice and you follow it up with another bad choice. So it's important to me that we celebrate life, and the beginning of that is we're knit together in our mothers' wombs (Ps. 139:13) and it's a spiritual experience and a privilege to be a mom and to have a child. Thanks for watching this week's episode. Please feel free to like this video and share it with family and friends. For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexander Ellison in Ottawa....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, RPTV

RPTV: Hamilton-bus pro-life ad ruling is a technical win, but still a win

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexandra Ellison. Today we are here in Hamilton, Ontario right outside the Provincial Court to cover ARPA's legal battle against the city of Hamilton in a case that has captured the attention of pro-life advocates. The central issue is whether ARPA Hamilton has the right to display a pro-life advertisement on the side of a city bus. In the spring of 2021 ARPA Hamilton attempted to post a pro-life ad on a city bus when MP Cathay Wagantall's bill to ban sex-selective abortion was before Parliament. John Boekee: The work we were doing at the time was advocating for the sex-selective abortion bill. The ad said we're for women's rights, and through pictures, it applied that to women of several different ages. We thought to say that we're for women's rights shouldn't be that controversial. Yet they were able to connect it to abortion, so for that reason, it was rejected. The city's reasoning for rejecting the ad is rooted in their assertion that a pre-born child does not qualify as a human being under the criminal code, and thus is not a person. Using a personal pronoun implied personhood and was thus misleading. John Sikkema: In our case against the City of Hamilton, we had a fairly brief hearing at the Ontario Court in the city of Hamilton. The court decided that Hamilton was not justified in rejecting our ad, so in that sense, the case was a win for ARPA. The court said that the city had not explained to us, in writing, how it limited our freedom of expression, and so the court sent it back. The court said this decision fails – you, the city of Hamilton, need to give reasons on freedom of expression. Now, truth be told, that's not how we wanted to win. We had actually framed the case, not as a freedom of expression case, first of all, but as questioning the city's finding that our ad violates the city's advertising policy. So what we had wanted was for the court to look at that policy and to find that the ad does not violate it and we think we had pretty good arguments for why that was the case. The court didn't hear those arguments and kind of decided it on, again, a bit of a more technical issue. So while it's a technical win, it's not really what we wanted to accomplish with this case because pro-life ads keep getting rejected as being allegedly misleading, and violating advertising policy. So, at this point, we have to decide, do we wait to see what the next decision is from the City of Hamilton and challenge that? Do we possibly appeal the decision of this court even though technically we won? Those are things we'll have to decide as we get the written reasons from the court for its decision, which we don't have yet. John Boekee: When you are frustrated with human judges and human courts, we turn to that, that He is the judge of all the earth, and in the end there will be justice. We are thankful for that, and we can rest in that. But there is also frustration at human judges who give us so little time after so much work had been put in, so that is very frustrating. But we can be thankful that there is still appeal, and there is still a justice system. So trusting that God is the Judge of all the earth, that also gives us the motivation to keep working and to keep going day-to-day to do what He's called us to. And that wraps up our coverage of the ARPA Hamilton case. We'll continue to follow this case closely and bring updates as they unfold. Thank you for joining us today – please feel free to support our work by subscribing to this channel and sharing this video with friends and family. For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexander Ellison in Hamilton, Ontario....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life flag proposal gets town talking about worldviews

A proposal by the Smithers Pro-Life Society for their community to fly a pro-life flag was unanimously rejected by their town council, but not without exposing their worldviews and getting the entire community talking about life and freedom and what to do when worldviews conflict.  An unlikely catalyst Along with many other communities located towards BC’s west coast, the town of Smithers has embraced a very secular ideology, which it understands to be “progressive.” As a part of its recent “Pride” celebrations, the town welcomed a drag queen story reading for children at the public library. Not impressed, over 800 members of the community signed a petition to express their concerns. Jessica Vandergaag, a board member of Smithers Pro-Life, was in attendance when the town council responded to this petition. “The councillors reiterated over and over how inclusive and diverse our community is and that the public square was for ‘everyone.’ Their words rang through my head all evening.  A thought came to mind – why not ask for the pro-life flag now when we can hold them to their words of inclusion and diversity? While they still remember the words they said!” Since the town flies rainbow flags on its main street, Smithers Pro-Life was planning to request next year that a pro-life flag be hung as well. But with the town council’s declaration that the public square is for everyone, now seemed the time to act. In the same month Vandergaag, along with board member Betty Bandstra, stood before Smithers council, backed by a crowd of supporters in the gallery. They requested that the town hang the pro-life flag or paint it on a crosswalk in the same intersection as the rainbow crosswalk. Vandergaag proceeded to give an impassioned speech to Council, explaining that “the pre-born remain the group that is most ignored, even though it has the highest death rate, 100,000 killed per year in Canada.” After quoting the mayor’s and councillors recent comments about welcoming different perspectives and worldviews, Vandergaag had the pro-life flag held up, and she made the case that the most vulnerable deserve public recognition “because it is through the awareness of human rights abuses that empathy is developed and public opinion is changed.” A confused response What was the town council going to do? How could they turn down a request for a symbol that shows inclusiveness for vulnerable citizens, with so many in the community demonstrating their support? The local newspaper gave the story its front page, providing coverage that was surprisingly fair to Smithers Pro-Life. Council put the request on their next meeting agenda, and the pro-life community showed up once again, filling the gallery to show their support for the initiative. Each council member spoke, and their words exposed the impact this proposal had on their hearts and souls. They were emotional and passionate… and also confused. One council member, Genevieve Patterson, who identified herself as both pro-choice and Christian, was in tears as she shared her story of multiple miscarriages. She explained how she had three pregnancies where the baby had died after the first trimester, requiring her to have a D&C procedure, to remove the baby. She went on to call the D&C her “abortion” and said that “I am grateful for my right to choose. It saved my life.” She added “As a Christian woman, and a leader in my community, I will never use my relationship with God to rationalize my political beliefs, as I believe my relationship with God is just that – my own.” Although everyone should sympathize with her experience, it is a fallacy to compare what she went through with abortion, as an abortion involves purposeful action to end the life of a preborn child. The pro-life perspective would adamantly support her in her D&C. And although she professes to keep her faith separate from her political beliefs, her pro-choice stance made it very clear that her beliefs dictated her political beliefs. The one member of Council who is known as a Christian and a member of a local Reformed church also voted against the flag. He explained that the feedback he read about the proposal included the concern that: “there will be women in our town, who might have had an abortion, not because they wanted to but because life circumstances forced them to such a decision. The presence of a pro-life flag or crosswalk could be very triggering.” He could understand why they would conclude that. His other comments made it evident that his main concern was about how people from both sides of these issues talked about the other side. Somewhat ironically, the only Council member who showed support for the proposal explained that he was an atheist, and had opposed the original rainbow crosswalk proposal on the grounds that it would raise one ideology or group over others. He sees this current proposal as proof that he was correct, and voted against it for the same reason as the rainbow crosswalk. He said he wanted to see a new proposal to not allow the town to make any more symbolic statements like the rainbow crosswalk, though he wouldn’t remove that crosswalk now because he isn’t in favour of removing symbols. Gladys Atrill, the town’s mayor, started her speech by reflecting that “residents of Smithers have challenged council in the past two weeks with big issues: issues about who we are, what we believe, our worldviews, what is OK in public, what symbols we should consider.” She proceeded to contrast the rainbow flag, and its alignment with the Canadian Human Rights Act, with the pro-life flag, which contradicts the reality that abortion is legal in Canada. “As such, I’m not in favor of placing symbols in public places that relate to health procedures since there are many that are viewed as controversial….. Miss Vandergaag linked her strong faith in God to her pro-life belief. Others hold different views, that abortion is a medically-necessary procedure and that women have the right to self-determination.” Mayor Atrill failed to recognize that the right to life is foundational to all other rights and is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the town is bound to uphold. She also failed to recognize that many things were legal and even celebrated in the past which we are ashamed of today (including how women were not recognized as persons under the law). The fact that something is recognized by law doesn’t make it right. To add to this, the mayor had no issue imposing her worldview (the right to abortion), over Vandergaag’s and others who are pro-life, within the same minute that she claimed that “The debate over abortion belongs at other tables than this one.” From town hall to town square After the town’s unanimous decision against the pro-life flag, the local media covered the story again. And this sparked a conversation that has carried on in the following weeks. In July, a local radio station invited Vandergaag and Bandstra, along with the drag queen story hour host, to an hour-long discussion about the pro-life flag proposal. Although she was nervous about taking part, she reflected after that “the conversation went well and I really felt at the end that God gave me words and guided me through quite the monologue.” She added that the others who took part expressed thanks to her and Bandstra for the civil conversation and the councillor in particular seemed “quite moved” by it. “I really pray and believe that even if it is not aired, that God did some planting there between the six of us.” Reflecting on the whole ordeal, she commented “while the result was not as we hoped, we do believe it to be a positive experience in the grand scheme.” She proceeded to give one example. “I was contacted by a former co-worker, whom I had no idea was pro-life, wondering what the result from Town Council was. Her family was visiting from Ireland and it was a topic of their conversation. I shared that it had been voted down and she expressed her sadness. I was touched that she contacted me and that conversations about it were still happening over a month later!” Not only do these conversations bring attention to our preborn neighbours, they also break through the veneer of “inclusivity” and “equality” that our secular leaders often champion, without having to defend. It was rather obvious that the council members only welcomed some perspectives, and these were ones that aligned with their own worldviews. The antithesis is as real in 2023 as it was in the Garden of Eden. Vandergaag “absolutely recommends” others to do this in their communities, both because of the conversation it creates and as a voice for the preborn who are otherwise not heard. But she also advised that it be done as a “delegation request” rather than simply a letter request. This is a request to address town council in person about a matter that important to a citizen or group, before a decision is made. “Letters can get passed by but a delegation request gets you extra time to present your request and the town council has to act on it with a motion in the following meeting.”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

RPTV: Katrina Marshall on being a pro-life advocate

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexandra Ellison. Today we bring an inspiring video of a young woman who has been working to make a difference in the pro-life movement. Her journey has taken her to the heart of Canada’s capital, Ottawa, where pivotal decisions about the sanctity of human life are made. Through dedication and passion, she has been working tirelessly to reshape the way people view the value of every human life. Join us to learn more about her challenges and her commitment to a cause that has the power to change lives. Katrina Marshall: "I'm Katrina Marshall. I wanted to be in Ottawa. I was connected with a church here, sort of online during COVID, before I was actually in the city. And it's not too far away from my parents in Kingston." Marshall got involved in the pro-life movement after an internship with the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform (CCBR), an educational human rights organization dedicated to making abortion unthinkable in Canada. Katrina Marshall: "I actually heard about the CCBR internship from an ARPA Canada newsletter – my brother shared the ad with me and I applied to their four-month internship March of last year, and I could not go back from that experience. So it's been kind of life-changing." As part of the internship Marshall spent the past two summers traveling around western Canada educating people about the truth of abortion. Katrina Marshall: "Basically we spend most of it doing pro-life street outreach and various projects. We do what we call 'Choice Chain' which is basically a public protest. We use abortion victim photography in all our projects, and we do things like door-knocking, and we do flyer delivery known as postcarding. So we are witnessing to a world that is often very pro-choice in our society, and we have conversations with people. Sometimes we'll just display the photos so that everyone knows what abortion actually looks like, and it's incredible. It's very hard work to do it all day, every day, but it's so rewarding. "It's hard to summarize, but you live for those conversations where they do end up changing their mind. They often end up sharing a lot, even a person, male or female, starts out completely supporting abortion, often by the end of the conversation, they will completely reject abortion in all circumstances, including the hard ones. So when that happens, it's almost hard to believe, because it's such a controversial topic. And often we see a lot of people who are really set in their ways, and who don't want to give us an inch. So when someone changes their mind it kind of just makes your day, sometimes even makes your week, depending on how it goes. But it's also definitely something that we get a lot of hate for, as you can probably guess. So we get a lot of verbal abuse, and things like that, but it is really worth it for the positive moments." Marshall spoke about the process of what having on-the-street conversations is like. Katrina Marshall: "Everyone is coming from a different place. So we always just try and ask them what they think about abortion, get their viewpoint. Often they'll bring up a hard circumstance where they think it is justified. Some people support abortion for any reason; some – in fact many, mostly – for limited reasons. So we always want to speak into that, into the specific situations they're discussing, and the issues they're raising. Not only that, but find out where their ideas are coming from, where that opinion was formed, and what's going on in their life, to really have compassion for them, and not just for the babies (as we are often accused of). "So if someone said they supported abortion for most situations, but not for casual encounters which they deem is irresponsible, I would ask them to consider a toddler in that same situation. If someone brought up the case of poverty, I would ask them if they would tell a mother who is in poverty, a mother of a 2-year-old, if she could kill that child to solve that problem. People are often taken aback: 'Of course not; of course we can't do that!' We use this common ground especially to begin. Then we use that analogy with the toddler and question, 'If we can't harm born humans, then why can we ever harm the same humans a few months earlier?'" Changing the general public's mind about abortion can be a path toward succeeding in political legislation. Katrina Marshall: "A lot of people have asked me why I do this specifically, and my answer is that there are so many people, especially pro-lifers, who don't recognize the value of educating the public on the issue of abortion, and how that plays into other arms of the pro-life movement, such as the political arm, or the pastoral crisis arm. If the public doesn't see that abortion is wrong then these other arms will not succeed. I see a large gap in the educational arm of the movement. What better way to save babies than to to talk with people who don't think that abortion is wrong at all, and in fact it's often celebrated." As a Christian, Marshall says that she can educate others about abortion as much as possible but at the end of the day it is Jesus Christ who saves lives. Katrina Marshall: "You can't change everyone's mind. When you realize what abortion is, how children are being starved to death, and ripped apart, and no one loves them, it's hard to recognize that sometimes you're the only one that will stand up for them. You're the only one that will love them, and honor their legacy, and it's hard to recognize that only God can change minds and only He can save lives in this work and you have to surrender that to Him." For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexandra Ellison in Ottawa....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Children’s picture books, Pro-life - Abortion

Dr. Seuss's "Horton trilogy"

Parents may be familiar with the first two of Dr. Seuss' Horton books, but the third, only recently republished will be a new delight for many. Horton hearts a Who by Dr. Seuss 1954 / 72 pages  This was the last Horton story written, but ranks first in our hearts for its surprising pro-life message! With his giant ears, the elephant Horton is able to hear what no one else can: that there are tiny little people, – Whos they call themselves – living on what looks like a dandelion puff. They are too tiny to see, and for everyone else they are too tiny to hear, but as Horton knows, and as he often repeats: “a person’s a person no matter how small.” So, conscientious pachyderm that he is, Horton is determined to protect the little Whos, and their whole town of Who-ville. His friends think he's crazy, and one in particular is so sure he's nuts that she wants to grab the dandelion puff and burn it, to put an end to his delusion. It comes to a climax with Horton encouraging all the residents of Who-ville to make as much noise as they can so others will finally be able to hear them! Will their humanity ever be recognized? Kids will love this for the rhymes and the charming hero, but pro-life parents can't help but embrace Horton's oft-repeated entreaty that "a person's a person no matter how small." His simple plea is so famous that it can be a tool in cultural conversations about the unborn since absolutely everyone has read Horton Hears a Who! Might Christians be reading something into the story that the author didn't intend? Quite likely. His second wife said the pro-life movement was hijacking the story for its own purposes. But whether Seuss intended it or not, his story makes a point worth hearing: that our worth is not dependent on our size. Christians have to take that further though, explaining where our worth does come from: being made in the very image of God (Genesis 9:6). Horton hatches the egg by Dr. Seuss 1940 / 64 pages The start of the Horton trilogy isn't as insightful as the third, but it is fun. In his first outing, the genial elephant is taken advantage of by a lazy mother bird named Mayzie. She says she just wants a quick break from egg-sitting, but once Horton agrees to take over, Mayzie takes off and doesn't look back. So, for day after day, Horton faithfully babysits the egg, roosting on the nest, at the top of the tree. As in Horton Hearts a Who, his friends aren't supportive – they're making fun of him again. And then hunters, startled by this strange sight of an elephant up a tree, transport him, tree and all, over the sea to put him in a circus. Horton has to endure the indignity, being displayed as a spectacle to crowds all over, but, as he repeats to all his critics: "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent!" And that, there, is the attraction of this book – it is about steadfastness, and sticking to your word, even when others – where is that Mayzie? – just won't. Children don't need to worry, though, as both Horton and Mayzie get what's coming to them in the end: the baby bird that finally hatches is half elephant! Horton and the Kwuggerbug and more lost stories  by Dr. Seuss 2014 / 64 pages Back in 2014, reports came of a "new" Dr. Seuss book, to be published 23 years after the author's death. It wasn't new new, but rather rediscovered new, with work that Seuss had published in magazines before, but never in a book. It was to be a collection of four stories, all of which had first appeared in print back in the early 1950s. The title tale features Horton once again being sorely treated, this time by a kwuggerbug, who promises to split some delicious beezlenuts if Horton will only carry him to the tree. It seems a deal when the tree seems near but in the end Horton is crossing crocodile-infested rivers, and climbing mountains and the trail just keeps going on and on. Then, in one final trick, the kwuggerbug "splits" the nuts by taking all the nut meat for himself and leaving Horton the shells for his half. But once again, justice is done, this time via an unintentional sneeze. And while there is no great moral to this story, it sure is fun to see Horton this one more time....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Brain surgery in the womb!

“Look, it’s not brain surgery” is a saying for a reason. Brain surgery is a delicate task that needs a lot of experience to do successfully. Which makes it even more amazing that doctors in Boston recently carried out brain surgery on a fetus – they did it on a baby while it was still in the womb. To achieve this, doctors had to use ultrasound imaging to help them guide a needle into the mother’s abdomen, through the uterus wall, and into the fetal brain. This might sound terrifying to a mother, but the risk was worth taking. The particular problem that this surgery was trying to solve was a malformed blood vessel in the child’s brain, where a vein connected with an artery. Since arteries carry blood at higher pressure, blood coming directly from the heart, this blood can pool in the vein. The goal was to fix this malformation of the artery and vein before birth. If you think this sounds complex and intricate, it certainly is! It was the first surgery of its kind ever performed, and proved this new technique is possible. But why do it in the womb? Well, the process of birth changes how blood flows in the fetus, and after birth there was an increased likelihood that this connection between the artery and vein could have led to a cascade of other problems for the baby, including blood clots, heart failure, and effects on the brain. Doing a surgery in the womb meant that, rather than bracing for the multiple complications this kind of blood vessel malformation could cause the baby, surgeons could prevent these problems from ever happening. This surgery adds an interesting wrinkle to the debate over when life begins. If we can do brain surgery on a fetus in the womb – and we think it is worth the danger and expense of treating a fetus – then it provides the world another piece of evidence that these living beings are valuable, long before birth....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

If the unborn are not our equals...

In the West we believe all people should be treated equally, no matter their age, race, religion, etc. But why is that? Why should we treat all people equally when, in any way you measure it, no two people are equal? We differ in size, intellect, strength, coordination, hearing, visual acuity, musical aptitude, and in the amount of hair we have left on our head. No two of us are the same so why should we get the same treatment? In any other situation we don’t treat unequal things equally. We hang a Rembrandt up on a museum wall, while our kids’ efforts only make an appearance on the fridge. Both are art, so why don’t we treat them equally? We recycle our newspapers but save our dollar bills securely in banks. Both are printed paper so why don’t we treat them equally? Because they aren’t equal.  So let’s ask the question again: if we don’t treat unequal things equally, and in any measurable way no two people are equal, why should we treat people equally? The Christian answer There is a Christian answer to that question. The Bible tells us we are all made in God’s image – all of us, without exception. The smallest, weakest child and the largest, strongest man may seem to have nothing in common but that they are both made imago Dei, in God’s image. What makes us equal is not based on our abilities, but is instead intrinsic, not measurable, but still evident to any who pay attention. Every human being is remarkable precisely because we are all, from conception onward made in God’s image. The world’s fail The world rejects God, yet they still talk about equality. Just not for the unborn. They won’t give the unborn equal rights – not even the right to life – because the child can’t yet breath on its own, or because it doesn’t have a heartbeat yet, or because it can’t feel pain yet. They won’t treat it equally because it can’t do this, or that, or the other thing. In arguing against fetal rights they ground equality on ability. Why are we worthy of respect and the unborn aren’t? Because we can do things that they can’t. However, if ability is the basis for equality, then we’re back to the same question: on what basis do we treat people of greatly varying abilities equally? If women can’t lift as much as men, then aren’t men better than women? Aren’t they superior? That’s not an attractive thought to anyone. But only Christians know why: “…in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Meanwhile the world has to pretend that a 150-pound woman really can lift the same amount at a 200-pound man – they have to pretend that in every respect women can do all that men can do because ability is their only basis for equality. The question As Christians our pro-life argument is that an unborn baby is equal to a newborn, is equal to a toddler, is equal to a teen, is equal to an adult. Different in every measurable ability, and yet equal because they all share the imago Dei. And the question we have for the world is this: “if you think the unborn aren’t our equals, then explain please, why you think anyone is equal?”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

How to defend the unborn in under a minute

I live in a town that’s so pro-life that when I go outside wearing a pro-life t-shirt the only reaction I get is, “Hey Jon, great-looking shirt there. Does it come in red?” We’re so pro-life that when pro-abortion politicians marched in this year’s Farmer’s Day Parade, there was all sorts of cheering and clapping for the float in front of them and the marching band behind them, but not a peep anywhere near them. They were enveloped in an angry bubble of silence. Our town is so pro-life that when my daughters and I volunteer at the pro-life booth, we can count on thanks, not shouts. The booth is set up at the summer fair each year, and most everyone stopping by is there to offer encouragement. They bring their kids to get free pro-life lollipops and pencils. Some buy yard signs or hats. The most popular items are our life-size fetal models showing what the unborn look like at 6 months, and 4 months, and 12 weeks; it’s always fun when a pregnant mom comes by to show her kids what size their baby brother or sister is right now. In the half dozen years we’ve been at this, I’ve only had a dozen or so folk either insult or argue with me. This, then, is more about preaching to the choir than reaching the opposition. Equipping the choir That’s why this year I decided to switch things up a bit. If it was always the choir stopping by, then what if we focused on equipping them? What if we tried to give them a quick “Pro-life 101” refresher, so they could walk away better able to speak up for the unborn? Of course, everyone at the fair is there for the rides and the food and the demolition derby, so it isn’t really the time and place for a class in apologetics. If I was going to pitch something educational, it needed to be quick. My daughters helped me out with a big poster that made an even bigger promise: “Learn how to defend the unborn in under a minute!” The sign was eye-catching and, thankfully, ambiguous enough to give me a little wiggle room on the time limit. Was I promising passersby a 59-second lesson or was I going to show them – in perhaps a slightly longer length of time – how they themselves could offer up a sub-minute defense of the unborn? The fudge factor allowed me to go a little long if I needed it. The short version A lightning-quick defense of the unborn is possible because most abortion arguments focus on one thing: what the unborn can’t do. The fetus is said to be less valuable and less deserving of protection than you or me because: they can’t breathe yet they don’t have brainwaves yet they aren’t self-aware yet they can’t survive on their own Whatever the reason given, it amounts to an abilities test – the unborn are said to be worth less, because they can do less. Therefore to defend the unborn all we have to do is show how it isn’t our abilities that give us value. We can do that by asking a couple of key questions. We’ll need our opponents to explain: Where does human beings’ worth come from? On what basis are we all equal? Unpacking the argument If our value comes from what we can do then that presents a problem for equality, since we all have very different abilities. I’m bigger than most, and maybe you’re faster than me, and that fellow over there might be smarter than both of us. So, then, in what sense are any of us equal? It’s quite the conundrum for the abortion supporter. Any ability-based answers he gives to the first question will run him into problems with the second. After all, we all understand that we don’t treat very different things as equal – a Rembrandt is housed in a museum under guard, while a child’s fingerpainting will only rate the fridge door, even though both are art. So unless men and women are actually equal in some sense, then we shouldn’t treat them as equal. That’s a thought no one wants to think, so we can be aggressive in pressing the abortion defender to explain how we’re equal. When he’s fumbling about, it’s our chance and our turn: “You can’t explain where equality comes from, but I can.” We can explain that what makes us all valuable, and equally so, is the only thing we all equally share: that we are made in the very Image of God (see Gen. 1:27). Being made in the Image of God isn’t something we grow into, or get more of, and it isn’t even something we can cast off (Gen. 9:6). We have it, not on the basis of anything we can do, might do, or should do, but on the basis of Who made us, and how He values us. This is not only an explanation for why a small weaker woman is equal to a stronger bigger man, but why the very small and very weak unborn child is equal to any and all. Stand on God’s Word While our opponent might dismiss the Bible, that doesn’t make it any less powerful (Heb. 4:12, Eph. 6:17). And we can counter their dismissal by challenging them to offer any sort of better explanation. They don’t have one! More importantly, when God says His Word won’t return empty we need to trust that it’s so (Is. 55:11). Too often, Christians will try to defend the Christian position without presenting it as the Christian position. If our opponents are attacking the unborn for what they can’t do, then we’ll try to defend the unborn with an equally godless argument, highlighting all that they can do. Instead of arguments about being made in the Image of God, we’ll show how very much the unborn seem to be crafted in the image of Man: The unborn’s heart is beating at three weeks Brainwaves can be detected at 40 days They may be able to survive outside the womb at 20 weeks They can recognize their mother’s voice at 7 months The problem with any of these points is that, on their own and apart from the Bible, they are only another abilities test. We’re saying that the unborn are valuable because of all these things they can do. But that’s the pro-choice argument! If we argue that the unborn are valuable because their heart begins beating as early as three weeks, what does that implicitly say about the unborn at two weeks, before their heartbeat has begun? Any defense of the baby based on what it can do throws shade on babies who have yet to develop those abilities. We either stand securely on God’s Word, or we will, accidentally but most certainly, end up adopting the very position that we oppose: that our worth comes from what we can do. Conclusion I got to share my two-question apologetic with a dozen or so pro-life folk. I also got to try it out with a young man who wanted to argue. It slowly came out that the reason he thought we should all just mind our own business is because he’d gotten his girlfriend pregnant and paid for her abortion. So he was very interested in justifying what he’d done. He thought the baby wasn’t human because it was so small. But this man, little more than a boy himself, was half my size, which I pointed out. Did he really think bigger meant better? No, he conceded, that wasn’t true. He didn’t repent. Or at least not then and there. But I was able to confront him with just how insufficient his justifications were. He left rejecting the Christian explanation for our value, but admitting that he had nothing else to offer. That’s what I could do standing on God’s firm foundation; I could blow apart the underpinnings of his godless arguments. Because I did this while giving the glory to God, this confused and hurting boy will know where to go, and Who to turn to for truth and forgiveness. And all it took was a couple of questions and a minute… or so....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Upcoming documentary asks, how can we end abortion in Canada?

Two Canadian filmmakers want to know: how can Canada get a win for the unborn like the US experienced in 2022? And Josie Luetke and Ruth Robert are making a documentary to figure it out. They've titled it Roe Canada: The True North in a Post-Roe World, a reference to the US Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion across the country 50 years ago. The reason we are now in a "Post-Roe" era is because of the stunning Dobbs decision last year, in which the Supreme Court overthrew Roe and declared that the US Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. When their ruling was issued, pro-lifers on both sides of the border could hardly believe it was real. We'd almost forgotten that with God nothing is impossible. Then, in the immediate aftermath of Dobbs, individual states like Idaho, Texas, and South Dakota started offering protections for the unborn right from conception. Now these two filmmakers want to know, how can it happen here? The documentary will feature the Babylon Bee's Seth Dillon, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson, Reformed Perspective contributor Jonathon Van Maren, activist Stephanie Gray Connors, and many others. Together they are trying to craft a roadmap for the end of abortion in Canada. Luetke and Robert plan to finish Roe Canada by the fall but already have a trailer available, which you can check out below. And if you want to help fund the film, visit RoeCanadafilm.com to find out how. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Harry Whittington (1927-2023): a Republican who convinced Democrats that if you're confused, you shouldn't kill

Early last month Harry Whittington died at the age of 95. While the attorney, World War II veteran, and Republican Party supporter led a busy life, the media coverage of his passing all focused on just one event: the day that the Vice President of the United States shot him. It happened in 2006, 17 years ago, when Whittington was a spry 78. He was out on a hunting trip with the VP, Dick Cheney, and Whittington was trailing behind, searching for a bird he'd previously downed. Then a quail popped out of the bushes behind Cheney, the Vice President turned, fired off a shot, and hit Whittington instead, spraying his chest and face with more than 100 pellets of birdshot. Some of the pellets remained in Whittington to the day he died and one lodged in or near his heart, causing him a heart attack. Fortunately, Whittington recovered quickly, even appearing at a press conference only days later. But in the meantime, the shooting became fodder for leftwing media and especially the late-night talk shows. It was referenced in David Letterman's Top 10 List, and the focus of a skit on Jay Leno's The Tonight Show. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Saturday Night Live all piled on. Some years later, the then President Obama got in on it too, suggesting that Cheney’s memoirs were going to be titled How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People. These Democrats all understood that what Cheney had done was incredibly foolish. A cardinal rule in hunting is that you can’t fire your gun unless you’re sure people aren’t in your line of fire. Pleading ignorance is no excuse – you have to know no human life is being endangered or you can’t fire. Obama rightly mocked Cheney for proceeding with deadly intent, without being sure whether he was going to kill bird or man. In the abortion debate, a popular argument in favor of the "right to choose" is that "no one really knows when life begins." Candidate Obama himself seemed to take this position when prominent pastor Rick Warren asked him "At what point does a baby get human rights?" Obama replied, "...answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." He didn't know. But if Obama doesn't know, and if no one knows whether or not what's being killed is human, that ignorance is just one more reason to ban abortion. The Democrats all mocked Dick Cheney for firing in ignorance. As Harry Whittington's injuries remind us still today, if we’re unsure whether or not human life lies within, then we can’t try to kill it. It's that simple. Below is a comic inspired by Harry Whittington's unfortunate experience. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion

A day in the life of a pro-life intern

A summer internship gives young people an opportunity to build friendships and grow in courage while speaking up for the unborn **** It’s 5:30 AM. My alarm clock goes off. Groggily, I turn it off and roll out of bed. It’s time to get up, go out, and start working to save babies. An hour later finds me driving to today’s postcarding location. I chat with Kim – one of our summer interns – about each other’s weekends. It crosses my mind how if it wasn’t for this awful issue of abortion, I probably never would have met Kim. I hate abortion – but I’m glad I know Kim. Getting the truth out We get out of the car, grab stacks of postcards, and set out. I walk up to the mailbox of the first house and put the postcard in. Back to the street and then up a second driveway. Up and down, back and forth, spreading the truth. It’s a bloody, gory, awful truth, but it’s truth nonetheless, and that’s why we spread it. People need to know. Babies’ lives depend on it. As we enter one neighborhood, children start coming out of their homes. Boys and girls, sleepy-eyed and yawning, lugging backpacks that seem almost as big as they are. I watch them trudge to the bus stop, the number of them growing. We’re here because there should be more of them, I think to myself. For every three children walking to the bus stop, there should be one more. I imagine a fourth child for every three and am struck by how those children did exist – they were just killed before they had a chance to wait for the bus on a sleepy weekday morning. Several hundred houses later and we meet up with the rest of our team. Next on the schedule is a “Choice” Chain; here, we hold signs showing abortion and engage pedestrians in conversation. Afterward, we debrief as a team, sharing conversations that culminated in changed hearts and minds. It’s always encouraging getting to talk to a culture and to watch people shift their views on abortion. It’s encouraging to be with so many young people who are a part of making that change. At the end of the day, we unpack our supplies and everyone heads off to their own homes. I’m about to go home myself when I hear something. Back in the room where we keep our supplies, on the floor amidst scattered postcards, I see Kim, crying. I sit down, put my arm around her, and stay. She keeps crying. “Whose idea was this?” she sobs. Now I’m crying too. “Whose idea was it to kill babies?” We sit. We cry. We look at the postcards around us and think of all the babies who died today. Just two girls, surrounded by so much evil, so much death. Afterward, I can’t remember exactly what else we said to each other, just that there was brokenness, and grief, and longing for a better day. Anger and courage Later, I reflect on the supply room, the postcards on the floor, and crying with Kim. I think of a quote by Augustine: “Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.” As I pack lunch and pick out clothes for the following morning, I pray and I plan for courage. Courage to face another day filled with the tragedy of abortion; courage fuelled by the hope we have as we see the results of our efforts in our country day after day; courage as we lean on each other, cry together, and work together.  I hate abortion. I’m glad I know Kim. The Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform is a dynamic pro-life group working to end the ongoing slaughter of 300 unborn Canadian children that happens every day in our country. They are offering a unique summer job opportunity to come help them in this fight. You can learn more about this paid position at EndTheKilling.ca/internships. Deadline to apply is March 18th. Devorah Gilman worked for the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform from 2013-2019 (Picture courtesy of CCBR). ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Canada taps the brakes on the runaway euthanasia train

After the Society of Canadian Psychiatry (SCP) sounded the alarm late last year, the government of Canada has now temporarily put the brakes on its expansion of the country’s already liberal euthanasia regime. It had planned to make euthanasia available to the mentally ill as of March 2023, but is giving the system more time to get ready. The SCP’s warning was based on clinicians’ current inability to assess when a mental illness is or is not “irremediable” (i.e., irreversible/incurable). The SCP asserted as a given that euthanasia shouldn’t be given to people who may still recover. So, their argument went, since we can’t yet tell when someone with a mental illness will or won’t recover, it is premature to be offering it to the mentally ill. The organization Dying with Dignity, which has been leading the charge for state-sponsored death in Canada, was upset by this decision. "We must avoid creating barriers that will prolong grievous suffering." Sounding very similar, Justice Minister David Lametti said: “Remember that suicide generally is available to people. This is a group within the population who, for physical reasons and possible mental reasons, can’t make that choice themselves to do it themselves.” Before Canada legalized assisted suicide back in 2016, ARPA Canada urged the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal government to recognize that once the sacred line of the 6th Commandment is crossed, condoning some killing, it will become impossible to draw a new line that will hold. The past six years bears this out. Our society no longer knows which suicides should be prevented and which should be celebrated as an expression of choice. Lobbying government to stop (and reverse!) the train is important and needs to continue. But given that the train keeps roaring down the tracks, the Church needs to do what it can to get people off the tracks. More than ever before, Canada needs to hear the hope of the Gospel, which gives meaning to all lives. Have your neighbors heard it?...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News, Pro-life - Euthanasia

“Markus showed us how to find meaning in suffering”

On Nov. 25, 2022, Mike and Jennifer Schouten testified before the Parliamentary Committee that is considering expanding euthanasia to children **** On May 29, 2022 Markus Schouten was promoted to be with His Lord, at the age of 18 and after battling cancer for over a year. Just six months later, his parents Mike and Jennifer had the very difficult job of appearing before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, in Canada’s Parliament, to share their story of walking with Markus through his suffering and death, and to urge our leaders to promote care for those suffering, rather than aid them with, and encourage them towards, suicide. They were the final witnesses to appear before this group of MPs and Senators, and their presentation made quite the impression, as they received questions for the next 45 minutes. We highly recommend you take the time to watch it. We reached out to Mike and Jennifer the following week to ask them about this experience. **** How did you get invited to share Markus’ and your family’s story with this Parliamentary committee? In April 2022 we sent in a written submission to the committee. At the time we had exhausted all treatment for cure and were focused on quality of life for Markus. We sent in the submission in consultation with Markus and with his blessing to use our experience as we were able to impact the current cultural conversations about euthanasia and assisted suicide. The invitation to appear before the committee came as a reply to our emailed submission in April. We had about ten days notice, but it came as quite a surprise to us. Was it a difficult decision for you  to agree to this? There was some initial excitement about this opportunity that God had put before us, but quickly we began to relive those last days with Markus and this brought up the variety of emotions of his suffering and death. It was only with the help of God, and the prayers of the saints carrying us along that we were able to push through. What were some of your hopes or goals with doing this? Even prior to the invitation we were having more frequent discussions about suffering and how we (as Christians and as a country) have so much to learn about suffering well. The main focus we had as we prepared for the presentation was to present a Christian perspective on suffering and death, with the purpose of ensuring the committee members had to wrestle with their own pre-existing worldviews on euthanasia and assisted suicide. While we were there to speak into the conversation about expanding this to minors, we purposefully framed some of our remarks in such a way as they would apply to all aspects of the euthanasia debate. You  had to endure a lot of questions from the MPs and Senators, some of which would likely have hurt. How did you feel about the questions that you were asked? We were surprised that they asked so many questions. Quite honestly we were preparing as though we might only receive one or two questions from sympathetic committee members, with those opposed to our perspective not giving us more opportunities to repeatedly emphasize our message. That so many MPs and Senators wanted to question us just meant we could speak truth to them in different ways each time. You shared that “Markus showed us how to find meaning in suffering.” Can you share any advice with others who are in the midst of suffering in similar ways right now, or perhaps will face this in the future? Suffering is hard and it looks different for everyone. Even though God has taken our family through the furnace of suffering (Isaiah 48:10) we have much to learn. Perhaps the most helpful advice we received early on in Markus’ cancer journey was the virtue of submission. Submitting to God’s will, especially when it appears His will is to go through a very hard season, and the only thing we (humanly speaking) want to do is flee from it, is challenging. Yet, through the power of our Saviour Jesus who has gone before us in traveling the road of suffering, we can submit to God’s will. This is not only right, it is liberating; it allows the sufferer to give his/her afflictions over to God and live in the assurance that He will carry us in the arms of Jesus, come what may. The love and hope that you have for Markus and our Lord radiated through your presentation and answers. Did you sense a spiritual battle being fought? Do you have any indication as to how your presentation went over? Absolutely. The most challenging part of the time we spent in the committee meeting was the spiritual component. The antithesis was palpable and became more apparent the more questions that were asked. The Senators, in particular, clearly had their minds made up and were trying their best to have us agree that even though it wasn’t something we would support, we should support it for others. We had a few committee members thank us personally immediately after the meeting. Since then we have reached out via email to all those who had questions for us and can thankfully share that one of the more strident members expressed that it helped her “think through the tough stuff.” What would you like to see Christians doing in the face of Parliament’s study into expanding euthanasia to minors? We need to be in prayer for the testimony of witnesses to touch the hearts and minds of the committee members. While our testimony was unique in that it was the only personal story to come before the committee, there were many other witnesses who cautioned the committee in expanding euthanasia to minors. Please pray that God would work through all the evidence before the committee with the result being that they recognize the dangers in making euthanasia available to children. There is still much opportunity to impact the recommendations that the Special Joint Committee will be drafting. They plan to have their report concluded by February 17, 2023 and we would encourage Christians to communicate to both their MP as well as the committee members before then. This can be done using ARPA Canada’s EasyMail system or by visiting the committee website where you can find contact information for all the members. Is there anything else you wish to share with RP’s readers? We are so appreciative for the many people who have reached out to us with words of encouragement and prayers on our behalf. We truly felt carried by your prayers. If God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31) **** Presentation to the Special Joint Committee on MAiD A transcript of Mike and Jennifer's 9-minute presentation to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) follows. You can also watch their presentation, and the question and answer period, in the hour-long video below. JENNIFER: This is our dear son Markus. On February 26, 2021 Markus was diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma, an aggressive form of bone cancer. After 20 rounds of chemotherapy, 25 rounds of radiation, numerous surgeries, including the replacement of his entire upper right arm with an internal prosthetic, we made the decision with Markus and his doctors to end treatment for cure and focus on quality of life. Markus’ care was then transferred from BC Children’s Hospital to Canuck Place Children’s Hospice. The palliative and hospice care Markus received at our home was focused on addressing his suffering and valuing his dignity. The doctors and nurses knew his days would be short, and their efforts ensured that the days he had left were lived well. Markus wanted to die at home, surrounded by his family. But he also didn’t want to experience the intense pain and suffering that he knew would come as his lungs filled with tumours. On what turned out to be his last Friday, nurse Shana assessed Markus and said, “His time is short.” She advised us to take the window we still had for Markus to be transported to Canuck Place Hospice in Vancouver. With the increased intensity of his care we agreed. Our whole family was together at the hospice, and as we entered the evening it appeared that Markus would only last a few more hours. As each of his siblings said good night to Markus, he told them he loved them, and said, “See you in paradise.” Mike and I didn’t sleep at all but took turns sitting beside Markus. The nurses maintained his medication and Markus assured us that he was very comfortable and not in any pain. At one point he said to me, “This is how I hoped it would be.” As dawn arrived we realized that God had another day in store for Markus. Early that morning Markus’ friends arrived at the hospice and together they cried, laughed, and prayed. That afternoon both of Markus’ sets of grandparents also came to say goodbye. By early Sunday morning Markus was non-responsive and his breathing had become a lot more shallow. Just before 2:30 that afternoon Markus’ breathing slowed and with each of us around his bedside he took his final peaceful breaths and Markus’ soul departed from his broken body. MIKE: Markus died 6 months ago, on May 29, 2022, only 15 months after his diagnosis. If he was here today his appeal to you would be to not expand euthanasia to minors, for two reasons. Earlier this month it was reported in the news that CAMAP, the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, is recommending that physicians have an obligation to bring up medical assistance in dying with patients who meet eligibility requirements. As Jennifer just shared, Markus met the eligibility requirements. This means that if euthanasia is extended to minors, the day will come when families just like ours, sitting with their dying children, will feel an obligation to end the suffering of their child by having a doctor euthanize him or her. Dear committee members, we recommend against the expansion of euthanasia because by giving some minors the right to request, you put all minors and their families in a position where they are obliged to consider. If that happened to Markus the message heard would have been clear: we don’t think your life is worth living and if you want we can end it for you. The second reason we recommend you don’t extend MAiD to minors is because by doing so you eliminate unimaginably beautiful experiences. When we went to the Canuck Place Hospice, we didn’t know how long Markus would live. We hadn’t even wanted to go the hospice initially, but being there allowed us to embrace each moment we had with him, and him with us. If euthanasia becomes available to minors then that Friday night when we thought Markus was going to go… after we’d all had our time with him to say our goodbyes… It would seem like the thing to do right? “It’s time,” the nurse would say. “It’s the compassionate thing to do. You’ve all said your goodbyes… he doesn’t have to suffer anymore…he should go now,” the nurse would say. But, then we wouldn’t have had Saturday…a most beautiful day filled with precious memories. We suffered much with Markus, and we miss him terribly. But Markus showed us all how to find meaning in suffering and was thankful for each day God gave to him. It is our heartfelt recommendation to this committee, on behalf of Markus and our family, that you do not extend MAiD to minors and instead focus on providing the necessary palliative and hospice resources to ensure the best quality of living, even when someone is dying....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion

No place for pro-life cynicism

Roe’s reversal shows us what God can accomplish for and through His people.  ***** “In the days when the idea of a surprise pregnancy was only an abstraction, I had never suspected that I could feel fierce love for an embryo. I wanted to discuss my mixed-up feelings with Jon, but I didn’t know how, especially since it was clear that his mind was already made up…. Whatever else I might be able to do for our child, I knew I could never force Jon to love it. Of all the pains that await us in this world, I most desired to protect it from feeling unwanted.” This is how Jess explains her rationale for why she had an abortion. The embryo was loved but unwanted; protected from future emotional pain, but killed. Jess’ story captures so well our culture’s cognitive dissonance regarding life in the womb. We know full well that a pregnant woman has a growing, developing human being in her womb. But we legally allow that human being to be dismembered or poisoned for any reason the mother chooses. Here in Canada, we allow that fate right up to birth. The pro-life movement exists because we see this tragedy, we seek to expose the cognitive dissonance, and we strive to save lives. There are those who are deeply cynical of pro-life work. I’ve had many express to me how futile they think pro-life activism is in a pro-choice culture like Canada. Why the skepticism? Should we really believe that things will only get worse when it comes to abortion laws? That opinion certainly isn’t based on historical trends. Legal slavery was ended, we don’t legally subjugate women anymore, and many oppressive regimes have been defeated. Just because a mountain is difficult to climb, and we can’t see every part of the path from where we stand, doesn’t mean that the mountain is insurmountable. Look south of the border and ask, how many thought Roe v Wade would be overturned in our lifetime? Yet, that happened in June 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court released their Dobbs decision which found: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives .” This incredibly huge win means that now individual states are free to enact near-total bans of abortion! Examining how this came to be and recognizing the power of God’s hand in human political affairs, is an encouragement and call to action for Canadians who also want to see pre-born children in Canada protected in our lifetime. The state of affairs pre-Roe Unlike Canada, where criminal law is passed federally, in the U.S. criminal laws are passed by the individual states. Alongside Canada and many European countries, there was a growing trend in the U.S. toward legalizing more abortions that started in the 1960s and continued in the 1970s. What I didn’t know until reading the Dobbs decision was how slowly that movement was happening in the U.S. In fact, in 1973 when Roe was decided, 30 states still prohibited abortion at all stages. Well over half the country banned abortion, regardless of the age of the pre-born child. With one fell swoop from the U.S. Supreme Court that all changed, requiring states to allow abortions before the pre-born child was viable – a standard that was preserved and modified in the 1992 Casey decision. Now, in 2022, that decision has been reversed. The pro-life movement in the U.S. has exemplified tireless work toward this day, always striving to produce quality legal literature, educate the public, and continue to work one step at a time. Of course, it wasn’t just the effort of the pro-life movement that brought us to this point. Had Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retired during President Obama’s tenure, President Trump would not have had the opportunity to appoint three Supreme Court Justices. Those three justices were needed to overturn Roe. We can praise God for granting growth and in His providence providing favorable circumstances for this huge victory. It clearly was God’s blessing, along with the faithful labor of many, that resulted in this success. But we don’t immediately go back to where we were. We don’t see 30 states banning abortion at all stages. Ground was lost in the decades since Roe, not to mention millions of lives. All to say, this ruling is a victory, but it still comes with mixed emotions. There is still so much more that needs to be done. Yet, as Canadians we can take encouragement from the victory and take note of the work yet to do resulting from the Dobbs decision. Dobbs and freedom An abortion supporter carrying a "Freedom is for every body" sign that is inadvertently pro-life, sharing a message we desperately want the other side to understand. What did Dobbs decide? If you believe one of my law school classmates, “The decision also opens the door to forced abortions. Either way, your uterus belongs to the state now.” How could someone as intelligent as this guy come to such a strange conclusion? It comes from a very deliberate framing of the abortion issue by abortion proponents. We’ve known this for quite a while – we call ourselves pro-life because we want to emphasize that unjustifiably taking a human life is wrong. Abortion advocates call themselves pro-choice because they want to emphasize that mothers ought to be free to make choices. This was described in another abortion case in the United States, this one from 1992 and referred to as Casey. Incidentally, Casey was also overturned by the new Dobbs decision. In Casey, Justice Kennedy said, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." The awful extension of having this liberty to define the mystery of human life is that mothers have had the freedom to define pre-born human beings out of existence, therefore making them discardable. The Dobbs decision addresses Justice Kennedy’s definition of liberty head-on by trying to clarify that it is a good thing when, at times, there are limits on liberty. Such a definition of liberty cannot plausibly be absolute, the justices say in Dobbs, because “while individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existences,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life,’ they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts.” Liberty with such an individual source cannot be absolute. The state has a role in limiting it. Was my classmate right then? If the State can infringe liberty, does this mean that states are now able to force abortions? Certainly not by the logic in Dobbs. Liberty is important and does require a justification to be impinged. The justification is present here because according to Dobbs, “Abortion destroys what those decisions call ‘potential life’ and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an ‘unborn human being.’” That is, you have the freedom to do so much, but you don’t have the freedom to take a life. It’s quite something to see the U.S. Supreme Court say this regarding abortion. Forced motherhood The pro-abortion side is insistent that this is an unjustifiable limitation on women’s freedom, sometimes utilizing the term “forced motherhood.” The idea is that abortion restrictions are forcing women to become mothers by not allowing them to end a pregnancy. Early feminists were also concerned about forced motherhood, but they had a very different concept of what that meant. In their view, the motherhood was forced if the sex was forced. The problem was never the child who resulted from the sex – the problem was the man who did not respect the woman. And certainly, the child should not forfeit their life to alleviate the parents from the consequences of their actions. So much of the language has been twisted when it comes to discussing abortion. When a woman chooses whether to give birth or whether to have an abortion, the choice is not whether or not to become a mother. Once pregnant, the freedom to choose to be a mother is, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “Free, as a man is free to drink while he is drinking. He is not free still to be dry.” Once pregnant, a woman is a mother – she cannot choose otherwise. It isn’t the law that forces that choice, it’s biology. She can end her pregnancy by ending the life of her child, but that does not rewind the clock back to before she became a mother. Sex comes with the potential for procreation. Once procreation has occurred you can kill the resulting life, but that just makes you the mother of a dead child. Are women doomed then? It turns out, the answer is no. In fact, when women are denied the choice to end the life of their child, they don’t generally view motherhood as forced. In The Turnaway Study, researchers looked at women who went to an abortion clinic but were denied having one because they were past the gestational limit in that state. They found that women’s choices changed. Within a week after being denied an abortion only 65% of women surveyed still wanted one. By the child’s first birthday this was down to 7% and five years later it was only 4%. Remember, these are women who chose abortion. These aren’t women who just thought about abortion, these are women who made it to the abortion clinic, despite travel expenses and the logistics of actually getting there. The wanted or unwanted response to the pregnancy faded. The bond between parent and child persisted. Children are a gift No one is suggesting that pregnancy and raising children are easy. But it must be admitted that our abortion culture has fixated on the difficulties. Legal scholar Erika Bachiochi sums it up this way: “Pregnancy, with all its risks and demands, is seen primarily as a burden when viewed from the perspective of the unencumbered, autonomous male. Seen from the perspective of most women, and the men who love them, childbearing is a great gift.” Throughout all human history, mankind – men and women – have viewed the risk and hardship of pregnancy to be worth it. For those of us who believe what God tells us in the Bible, we understand that this great gift is one that comes from our loving, sovereign Savior (Psalm 127:3). Children are entrusted to the education and care of parents but are not property to be disposed of at will (Ephesians 6:4). All parents fail to some extent, but the further promise for us and for the countless pre-born children at risk of losing their lives to abortion is that even if “my father and my mother have forsaken, but the LORD will take me in.” (Psalm 27:10). That is the ethic the pro-life movement continues to exhibit and teach to our abortion-minded culture. The Dobbs decision demonstrates it, and it’s up to us to continue that work here in Canada. There is no place in this work for cynicism or for giving up when we serve a God who works great and mighty wonders for and through his people. Tabitha Ewert is We Need a Law’s Legal Counsel and a member of ARPA Canada’s Law and Policy team. Top picture credit: Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Documentary, Movie Reviews, Pro-life - Abortion, Watch for free

180: from pro-choice to pro-life in minutes

Documentary 2011, 33 minutes Rating: 7/10 The trailer for 180 showed people being interviewed on the street declaring their support for “a woman’s right to choose.” But then each of these interactions was fast-forwarded – anywhere from 30 seconds to a few minutes - to the conclusion of the interview where each of these same people then declare they have changed their mind and are now pro-life. Wow! So what prompted this sudden and dramatic switch? In the 33-minute documentary interviewer Ray Comfort makes use of an illuminating comparison to the Holocaust and follows it up with this clarifying question: “It’s okay to kill a baby in the womb when… ?” What Comfort is doing is confronting people with the incoherence of their own views. Though our culture is becoming more and more calloused to evil, most still don’t believe it is okay to kill human beings...and yet they make an exception in the case of abortion. When Comfort asks them to explain what circumstances make it permissible to kill a baby, each of his interviewees is brought short. They don't want to say we can kill a human being simply because they might grow up poor. Or because they are unwanted. Or because they are inconvenient. Their conscience convicts them with the knowledge that these are not good reasons to murder someone. By asking his pointed question Comfort makes them realize that they have never really thought through the issue of abortion before. It is worth noting that Comfort's approach will not work with any who have hardened their conscience, and who, fully knowing it to be a baby, have no objections to murdering it anyway. But for the ignorant or confused, what Comfort presents is incredibly clarifying. The documentary does have some graphic content – specifically pictures of Holocaust victims, and aborted children – so it is not appropriate viewing for the very young. For the rest of us, this is a fantastic film that can inspire us to clarify the abortion issue for the many millions who are pro-choice only because they are confused. To date, it's been viewed by over 5 million. You can watch it below, or by visiting 180movie.com. In 2019 Comfort and his team released a sequel, 7 Reasons in which they address 7 of the more common justifications for abortion. You can also watch it for free, right here. EDIT: YouTube just added an age-restriction to the video, so it's not displayable below, but can be viewed by clicking on the link below "Watch on YouTube" or by clicking here. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life memes and cartoons to share

Through the years Reformed Perspective has created a number of pro-life comics and memes, and this is where we are going to collect them, so that they are easier to find, to grab, and to share. Right click on the picture to copy it. Or, to put it more pointedly, murder is not a solution... This is an answer to the complaint that, if not for abortion, so many more children would be in foster care, or would be poor, or would be unloved. But if killing people is the best way to address those ills, then, why aren't we extending the principle and murdering the already-born kids who are also in those situations? Because we know murder is not a solution, and we know that's not what compassion looks like. My body, my choice? There are any number of answers to the most popular of all pro-abortion slogans, "My body, my choice," most noting that there isn't simply one body involved. But it is important to note, it isn't that the unborn have a head, heart, or legs that make them valuable, as, early on, they didn't have those things. Rather, what makes us valuable (and what is also the only basis for equality) is not what we have or what we can do, but in Whose Image we are made (Genesis 1:27). No one knows when life begins? This comic was inspired by a hunting incident involving former Vice President Dick Cheney, and an interview with Barack Obama back when he was still Senator Obama. In a 2008 interview, the man who would become the next president of the United States said that he didn’t know when life began – it was above his pay grade – and that regardless he still supported abortion. But back in 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney had already illustrated why, when we have doubts, it is immoral to kill. The Vice President made his pro-life case while out on a hunting trip with a man by the name of Harry Whittington. Admittedly, Cheney wasn’t trying to score pro-life points – he was trying to shoot birds. But what was a bad day for the birds, and for his fellow hunter, turned out to be an unforgettable defense of the unborn. Things took a pro-life turn soon after the two hunters separated –Whittington was searching for a bird they had previously downed. As Whittington returned to the group, a bird popped out of the bushes behind Cheney, and Cheney, without checking first where Whittington was, fired off a shot. That shot may or may not have hit the bird, but certainly impacted Whittington, spraying his chest and face with birdshot. Fortunately, the 78-year-old Whittington survived his wounds. Cheney went on to become the butt of many, many jokes, including one from President Obama, who said that Cheney’s memoirs were going to be titled, How To Shoot Friends and Interrogate People. Everyone, including President Obama, understood that what Cheney had done was foolish. A cardinal rule in hunting is that you can’t fire your gun unless you’re sure people aren’t in your line of fire. Pleading ignorance is no excuse – you have to know no human life is being endangered or you can’t fire. It’s that simple. Obama mocked Cheney for proceeding with deadly intent, not knowing whether or not he was endangering human life. But Obama’s justification for abortion is just as foolish. His plea that when life begins is above his pay grade means that he doesn’t know one way or the other whether what’s in the womb is human life. But as Vice President Cheney reminded us that if we’re unsure, we can’t kill. Same thought as above, is expressed another way down below. Supposing we didn't even know when life began, that would only be another reason to ban abortion. Because if we aren't sure whether or not what we're killing is human, then we shouldn't kill it! ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – April 30, 2022

Meet one of Canada's anti-abortion influencers (6 min) Though this profile is by a decidedly left-wing outlet, it still can't help highlight how impactful pro-life warrior Laura Klassen, and her friends, have been on behalf of the unborn. Klassen's own videos, with her satiric takes on pro-choice "logic," can be seen here, here, here, here, and here, and you can also check out her BC-based pro-life group Choice42. It's wrong to play the pronoun game It's not harmless to offer up your "preferred pronouns" and Christians mustn't have any part of it. Why Disney has gone woke (10-min read) Why would a company that's built around family viewing decide to double down on an LGBT agenda so many families oppose? It's because Disney's new "customer base isn't kids. It's messed up adults." Walt's original "business model depended on a healthy national family" but today's "shareholders are not going to bet on a growth segment in the American nuclear family that doesn’t exist. Betting on dysfunctional adults with sizable disposable incomes makes a whole lot more sense." That's why "60% of Disneyland visitors were adults with no children." No-fault divorce ignores data... and children The UK is bringing in no-fault divorce with the argument that it will "remove unnecessary conflict from the process by ending the blame game — helping spare children from the harmful effects this can have.” But, as John Stonestreet explains: "This, 'the kids will be fine' line, is not just nonsense: it’s dangerous nonsense. It flies in the face of everything we know about the impact of divorce on the most vulnerable among us." The unlikely rise of Vladimir Putin (10-minute read) How did Putin rise to power? Thinkr offers book summaries – 10-minute reads with key insights from various bestsellers – and this time they've summed up Masha Gessen's The Man Without A Face, her biography about this infamous world leader. Does the free market help the poor than any other economic system? "As Christians understand, material wealth is not the be-all and end-all of human existence, however: Only market societies have generated wealth sufficient to meet the basic human needs of entire populations. Only market societies have generated sufficient wealth to generate widespread and organized assistance for those unable to care for themselves. Only market societies have generated sufficient wealth to promote other important human objectives, including nutrition and health, environmental protection, and even human happiness." Your cell has a DNA detangler! (5 min) Ever tried to detangle your daughter's hair? God has packed a tiny machine in each of your cells that does the same job for your DNA. This is so unbelievably cool! ...

1 2 3