February 18, 2016

SPECIAL EDITION: Abortion in Canada -- and a plea for the pro-life movement

Faith GoldyArchive

On the topic of abortion, I break down the sad state of affairs in the country and make a plea to the pro-life movement.

Plus: Face of the movement Alissa Golob is on deck to explain the best political plays to ensure protection of the unborn.

Then a father whose unborn child was murdered days before her due date. Jeff Durham joins us to give a voice to baby Molly on behalf of all human lives who aren't being heard by our nation's present legal system.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-03-10 23:45:12 -0500
I saw an ultrasound picture of my grandchild today. My daughter is just under 3 months pregnant. The whole vertabrae/spinal column was clearly formed. My daughter said the heartbeat is 153 beats per minute. Whoever doubts the life in that is clearly deluded.
commented 2016-03-10 04:15:18 -0500
I said that christians that result to using the bible to make a point, can’t form a good opinion on their own. Furthermore, they are pretty inept at defending the bible too.
commented 2016-03-09 11:45:05 -0500
Sam Young said: “Oh how nice. People that beat their kids can now come to the rebel to learn the arguments on why beating kids is a good thing.”

Sooo people shouldn’t spank their kids and alternatives to spanking are not technically crimes because it’s bad that people can come to the rebel to learn arguments about why spanking is a good thing. And you said Christians can’t form good arguments.
commented 2016-03-08 00:45:39 -0500
Anti-theists who don’t believe in objective good and evil who then preach objective good and evil are quite entertaining to watch.
commented 2016-03-06 20:22:59 -0500
Oh how nice. People that beat their kids can now come to the rebel to learn the arguments on why beating kids is a good thing.
commented 2016-03-05 16:31:14 -0500
Whenever I hear atheists try to advance the whole we are more educated or have a higher i.q. than you argument I have to call their intelligence into question. There are some very intelligent people on both sides of the belief/disbelief question and a great many scientists have made contributions to the world while maintaining their religious or non religious world view. But I can assure you if they saw someone trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of the intelligence of others to advance as an argument as to why they are right, they would be the first to push you away claiming he’s not with us. Even Einstein in all his brilliance made mistakes which is why issues need to be decided on their own merit not on because I say so proclamations.
commented 2016-03-05 12:35:57 -0500
David Tremblay: It is not sound logic or scientific reasons that have convinced people to become atheists. If you can can please give me one positive argument that disproves god’s existence I would be interested in hearing it. Whether or not a person is more intelligent or over all more educated is not a logical argument that proves God exists or doesn’t exist. Imagine arguing a case in a court and you offered this argument “your honor you should accept my version of events because I am smarter or more educated than you”. That may or may not be true but it is irrelevant in dealing with the truth or non truth of a premise and to offer that as an explanation is not a product of intelligence but rather an attempt to create a logically invalid smokescreen. I will offer 3 premises which point to the existence of God. If you can demonstrate why any of these premises are false then you have a starting point. Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause Premise 2) The universe began to exist ( there is scientific evidence for this i.e. the red shift Premise 3) If everything that begins to exist must have a cause and the universe began to exist then the universe must have a cause. It also matters nothing to me that the world is billions of years old. Whether or not some people believe the earth is 6000 years old or not has not changed practical science. Everyone has always believed things change or evolve to some degree. What they may argue is to what extent and can evolutionary theory account for all the changes we have seen.
commented 2016-03-05 02:10:46 -0500
Your characterization that people bring children into the world for the purpose of beating them is wrong. Also, your premise that all violence is wrong is a false as is your characterization of corporal punishment as violence.

There are legitimate forms of violence that we engage in for the safety of ourselves and others. A person responding to a home invasion may strike a burglar in self-defence. Police do not carry pepper spray as a form of seasoning. A baton and a pistol are not there to tickle people. They are there to respond violently in order to protect people. Members of the armed forces repel an invasion or put down an insurrection with violence. Violence per se is not wrong. It is sometimes warranted.

With respect to the difference between violence and corporal punishment, violence is physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill. Corporal punishment is physical punishment intended to improve. It is physical chastening. While both violence and corporal punishment describe the application of physical force to another, they have different purposes (and naturally different levels of severity).

Children need to be disciplined because they lack understanding. They don’t know everything that adults know. This includes the dangers of engaging in certain types of behaviour outside of the home. How children respond to authority is an example. Outside of the home, if a person responds to the lawful order of a police officer disrespectfully or defiantly, the consequences could be severe physically and otherwise. The lesson is to be respectful and obey. It is better to learn this lesson in the home with a comparatively mild spanking then to learn this at a traffic stop. Is corporal punishment always necessary? No but sometimes it is. Needless to say, it ought to be done in love and must be of appropriate severity.

On the flip side, some argue against corporal punishment on the grounds that it is technically a crime (assault) and wouldn’t be acceptable if done to an adult. This argument against corporal punishment goes something like this:

1) Parents should never do to a child that which is unacceptable to do to an adult.
2) It is unacceptable to commit a crime against an adult.
3) Parents should never commit a crime against a child.
4) Spanking is assault.
5) Assault is a crime.
6) Parents should never spank a child.

Is it true that parents should NEVER do to a child that which is unacceptable to do to an adult? The following is from an article entitled “Alternatives to Spanking” from parents.com:

“1. Call time outs. In a time-out, a child is safely isolated from her family or peers for short periods of time — generally a minute for each year of age. This gives her time to cool off.
Example: If your child gets angry with another child, put your child in her playpen or send her to her room. After the time-out, you and your child can discuss solutions to the problem that just occurred”

Ah… you see barbarians (conservatives)? THAT’S how you discipline a child. No crime has been committed. Let the Liberal’s say amen… But hold on a minute. Are you sure that no crime has been committed?

Since you put your child into a playpen, you clearly applied force to her and if you did so without her consent, you’d be committed an assault under 265. (1) (a) of the Criminal Code:

“265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he
applies force intentionally to that other person,
directly or indirectly;”

By carrying the child to her playpen to be confined against her will is kidnapping under 279. (1)(a):

279. (1) Every person commits an offence
who kidnaps a person with intent
(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned
against the person’s will;

Actually keeping her in the playpen is forcible confinement under 279. (2):

“279. 2) Every one who, without lawful authority,
confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another
person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding ten
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding eighteen months.”

If you warn your child before hand that a time out is imminent, you may be committing extortion under 346. (1):

“346. (1) Every one commits extortion who,
without reasonable justification or excuse and
with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations,
menaces or violence induces or attempts
to induce any person, whether or not he
is the person threatened, accused or menaced or
to whom violence is shown, to do anything or
cause anything to be done.”

Yikes! Assault, kidnap, forcible confinement, extortion. And Liberals call conservatives barbarians! It isn’t hard to see that accepting the truth of premises 1) and 3) would make not only alternatives to spanking illegal, it would be hard to do anything else. Changing a diaper of a child who doesn’t want it to be changed is technically an assault. Clearly, the premise that parents should never do to a child that which is unacceptable to do to an adult cannot be used in an argument against corporal punishment unless you believe that alternatives to spanking should be illegal also.
commented 2016-03-04 19:40:21 -0500
David,The plurality of evolution encapsulates close to a dozen interpretations that have cropped up over the last century, with the validly of each and every one relying on the scientific shortcomings of the other. Apart from Darwinism they include neo Darwinism, Telhardism, the various panspermian models, and the hopeful monster theory to name a few. Is their any one in particular that you favor and consider more scientifically factual then the other?

As far as incorporating God into the picture Not only must you convince the religious community that evolution and a belief in God is tenable, you must also convince those in the scientific community as well, especially those who reject God and have developed numerous evolutionary models to support their belief that a divine creator played no part in the process.

Nobel Prize Winning Biologist, Jacques Monod states, “Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms…The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”
commented 2016-03-04 16:25:43 -0500
As the overall level of education in Canadian society rises so does the number of people who don’t believe in god(on average 2 per cent more each year). As people understand that they are allowed to make their own conclusions using sound logic and reason and not be forced to participate in religions that perpetuate ridiculous ideas such as the earth is only 6,000 years old, we continue to become a better more tolerant society. Religion is dying fast and unless religious extremists stop blindly opposing proven science like evolution, religion will only die faster. Maybe if religious leaders considered the idea that evolution is factual and it is all part of god’s plan, maybe just maybe they will have hope of still existing 50 years from now.
commented 2016-03-04 09:35:20 -0500
Edward Jobin,

“What those conclusions are simply doing is promoting philosophical materialism”

Yes, that certainly is what they‘re doing; yet it’s not as simple as that. They use a secular based naturalism as tool to validate and justify that position for as Richard Dawkins suggests, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The spontaneous regeneration of matter is all there is for those who hold to this notion that there is no God and that we are instruments of our own destiny. Another way to put it, as Dr Carl Wieland did back in 1988, “evolutionists ultimately exclude creation a priori not because of evidence, but because it violates their arbitrarily decreed materialistic ‘rules of the game’, as described by William Provine below.

Jonathan Edwards, Martin Murphy wrote, “The law of non-contradiction, the law of causality, and the basic reliability of sense perception are three components necessary to communicate truth”.

Society as a Whole is becoming increasingly accustom to ignoring these laws and have nurtured a breeding ground for inconsistent irrational reasoning when it comes to a number of moral issues, including that of abortion. As shown on numerous occasions it is a crime for a pregnant woman to make a decision that endangers the life of her unborn child yet she is within her right and legally entitled to abort that child if she so chooses.
commented 2016-03-03 13:30:55 -0500
NNAUMUA FARRELL: I think the 4 premises cannot be extrapolated from biological science. 1How do you conclude no gods worth having exist? When did science prove that life doesn’t exist after death? 3 on what do they base there is no foundation for ethics? 4 No ultimate meaning of life exists? based on what? Pure speculation. 5 Human free will doesn’t exist? So if we have no free will why are we arguing or trying to convince others against their programming? Those words all based on empty fluff but lack any substantial argument. You will not find any scientist who will claim they have disproved God’ s existence. What those conclusions are simply doing is promoting philosophical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleM materialism.
commented 2016-03-02 22:20:00 -0500
Ken Conrad said:

“In his 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, evolutionist William Provine, professor of biological sciences from Cornell states, “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Good points, we take a lot for granted in our culture. We assume that we can just always retain the protections provided by past assumptions without the past assumptions.
commented 2016-03-02 22:00:47 -0500
Edward Jobin said:
“Embryonic stem cell research is allot more problematic than most people realize. ”http://flfamily.org/life/stem-cell-research-adult-vs-embryonic/">http://flfamily.org/life/stem-cell-research-adult-vs-embryonic/ "

Thanks for the link!
commented 2016-03-02 21:30:51 -0500
Sam Young said: "Have babies so you can beat them. Good idea. And then the kids can grow up in a household that normalizes violence.

Some people should just not have kids. "

LOL :)

To quote an Irish Chicago policeman with a Scottish accent, “I’m dining with the heathens…” lol

Not gonna lie Sam. It’s hard work having to prove that water’s wet and the sky’s blue. I will, however, reply to your post in a day or so. You’ve been a good sport. I’ll just leave you with one parting question to ponder in the mean time: Is all violence wrong?
commented 2016-03-02 18:26:00 -0500
“Don’t touch that dial” Should now be, “Don’t click that mouse”.
commented 2016-03-02 18:18:16 -0500
This has brightened my spirit! Thank you! Great show.
commented 2016-03-01 15:32:46 -0500
( Good comment Al Peterson. And, as you suggest, some people still might not care.)

To terminate the life of an innocent child as yet unborn, to culpably deprive him or her of the opportunity of ever experiencing life outside the womb, is to deny them of the right to live interdependent of another. And to think, here in Canada abortion can be exacted with extreme prejudice against the innocent who just so happens to be still residing within the “safety” of their mother’s womb; and it can be carried out anytime throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

A nation that can legally kill its citizens as yet unborn, and soon enough (in 2016) can also legally kill its citizens who are mentally or physically infirm. I am concerned about both instances; but presently much more for the unborn. And for the (other) abuses which may (eventually) take place, one due to the absence of law and the other due to the presence of law.

O Canada.
commented 2016-03-01 14:34:34 -0500
@edward Jobin: “…………my asshole detector gives a conflicting reading.”

commented 2016-02-29 23:30:40 -0500
Sam Young: Yes I can detect sarcasm but sometimes my asshole detector gives a conflicting reading.
commented 2016-02-29 20:23:36 -0500
Are you incapable of detecting sarcasm?
commented 2016-02-29 12:30:44 -0500
Edward Jobin,
Since it would be unethical to infect people in order to study disease, much of the work being done in the lab is with mice that have had their immune system altered to emulate or behave like that of a human…and this is based on several assumptions, the main two being, that the human immune system can be lumped into one box, or that it can be accurately mimicked or replicated in mice. To achieve this, researchers transplant the mice with a small amount of fetal liver cell tissue. Now, although it is not currently legal to plan an abortion for the sake of acquiring fetal tissue for research it appears that it is being done anyways. Clearly, planned abortion procedures provide the most control over how the tissue is recovered and this is critical to any controlled research including embryonic stem cell research.
commented 2016-02-29 11:25:54 -0500
Sam Young: Yes society should murder all people so they don’t risk suffering violence. What a twisted logic you have. Do you even think before you type?
commented 2016-02-29 02:48:01 -0500
Have babies so you can beat them. Good idea. And then the kids can grow up in a household that normalizes violence.

Some people should just not have kids.
commented 2016-02-28 14:52:33 -0500
Ken Conrad: Interestingly embryonic stem cells have not been used to cure anything and all of the cures we have so far come from adult stem cells. So there is no need to end a human life despite this issue being used to justify abortion. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
commented 2016-02-28 01:42:40 -0500
Let us not forget the role conventional medical doctors and the advancement in so-called scientific medical research plays with respect to this issue of abortion. In fact abortion along with the use of aborted fetal tissue for stem cell research, and vaccine manufacturing are just some of many reasons why the “Oath of Hippocrates” had to be rewritten.

The Encyclopedia of Bioethics in 2003 states,
“A document patterned after the Oath of Hippocrates appeared in 1948, when the newly organized World Medical Association (WMA) adopted the Declaration of Geneva. In 1991, 47 U.S. medical schools used it (Dickstein et al.). (Of the remainder, 14 schools used the Prayer of Maimonides or more recently written oaths.)”

Conveniently omitted in the new oath was that a doctor must always cure patients, but never do them harm. “first do no harm”. I suppose we dare naught expect much more if we believe we are merely a product o of a mindless universe!

In his 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, evolutionist William Provine, professor of biological sciences from Cornell states, “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
commented 2016-02-27 20:23:59 -0500
“In 2016, our government will eliminate poverty, gossiping, bullying, complaining, and ingratitude!”
commented 2016-02-27 20:13:54 -0500
Oh sorry, eff the Bible. Never mind that morality stuff and sparing the rod nonsense. Our parents and grand parents didn’t know jack about how to reduce the likelihood of bullying. Pink shirts everyone!
commented 2016-02-27 20:07:02 -0500
Speaking of politicians trying to stop the unstoppable:

A grown man wearing a pink scarf to “stop all forms of bullying.” It really is genius how easily conservatives are sucked into their own demise. We should be teaching our children to be moral individuals and allow parents to physically discipline them so that they are less likely to bully. We should also teach children how to defend themselves if attacked and stop school boards from suspending kids who do defend themselves.

In addition to wasting money and making governments more and more powerful by allowing them to regulate trivial matters, we open the door to making it more culturally acceptable to condemn Christianity and conservatism as liberals will inevitably redefine “bullying” to include promotion of the two.