In a recent LifeNews article written by Sarah Terzo, entitled “Pro-Abortion Activists Admit Abortion Kills Babies”, Sarah outlines the fact that abortion “killing” appears irrelevant to those who advocate either a “right to abortion” or “abortion choice”. Staggering as this may seem to those of us on the pro-life side of abortion and euthanasia it, also explains a great deal. The link to Sarah’s article is above and I encourage you to read it because it raises a “fork” in the pro-life road ahead we must take.

As pro-life educators we need to accept that “the other side” know that a human life exists in the womb, but that this tiny life has no relevance, should the mother not wish to continue carrying the child to term. In Canada we have also headed down the “euthanasia” road and currently 60,000 of our fellow Canadians have been killed by euthanasia since 2016. You might ask yourself, why Canada remains complacent with the killing of 60,000 born human beings by medical professionals, yet it is hardly surprising when the complacency of 56 years, regarding killing by abortion has resulted in almost 4,600,000 children before birth, by abortion.

It would appear that the callous killing of our tiniest member of the human family has dulled the conscience and wit of Canadians where euthanasia is concerned. The killing has become irrelevant – if the desired outcome is attained, in the case of abortion – no longer pregnant, and in the case of euthanasia – medical killing with consent.

In a John Howard Society 2001 article, regarding the Death Penalty on Canada entitled “ The Death Penalty: Any Nation’s shame,” you can read the following, so it appears that Canada has not always been so blind to the dignity of human life.

“Why oppose the death penalty? The moral, philosophical and religious arguments. For most opponents of the death penalty, moral, philosophical and religious beliefs are at the heart of their position. Perhaps the most basic is reverence for the sanctity of life, even in the most adverse circumstances. Some may argue that the death of the offender affirms the sanctity of life. It is difficult to understand, however, how killing people teaches that killing is wrong.

The death penalty is clearly a violation of one of the most basic of human rights – the right to life. Those who support the death penalty would argue that murder justifies the abrogation of any and all rights. Human rights, particularly one as basic as the right to life, are not, however, given or granted by governments and they cannot be taken away by governments. Human rights must belong to everyone or they belong to no one…….

 What has been said.. .

Are we, as a society , so lacking in respect for ourselves, so lacking in hope for human betterment, so socially bankrupt that we are ready to accept state vengeance as our penal philosophy? .. . To retain (capital punishment) in the Criminal Code of Canada would be to abandon hope and confidence in favour of a despairing acceptance of our inability to cope with violent crime except with violence.

Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau, June 15, 1976

 An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder.

Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr

 More.. .

A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human lifemust never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done greatevil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consens s to end the de ath penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

Pope John Paul II, 1999

 I believe that  any society that practices capital punishment brutalizes itself. It has an effect on that society and I do not believe that society can rid itself of murderers by itself becoming a murderer… The abolition of capital punishment has come to be taken as the hallmark of a nation’s conscience.

T.C. Douglas, 1966

 In all of these cases (of wrongful convictions), had capital punishment been imposed, there would have been no one to whom an apology and compensation could be paid in respect to mis carriage o f justice (apart, possibly, from surviving family members), and no way in which Canadian society with benefit of hindsight could have justified to itself the deprivation of human life in violation of the principles of fundamental justice.

Supreme Court of Canada, United States v. Burns” Justified killing?

Killing your own child for personal reasons! Having yourself killed for justified personal reasons!

As we go forward, especially if we continue with a Liberal Government, that sanctions, supports and funds killing at the beginning of life, at home and abroad, as well as euthanasia, the Pro-Life movement in Canada must revert to making the moral, religious and philosophical points regarding current “Life” issues, that are at our core and which were espoused by many Canadians, during the debate over the death penalty. Whichever stance one takes regarding the death penalty the arguments are still core to opposing induced abortion and euthanasia.

  • “Perhaps the most basic is reverence for the sanctity of life, even in the most adverse circumstances. Some may argue that the death of the offender affirms the sanctity of life. It is difficult to understand, however, how killing people teaches that killing is wrong.”
  • “The death penalty is clearly a violation of one of the most basic of human rights – the right to life”
  • “Human rights, particularly one as basic as the right to life, are not, however, given or granted by governments and they cannot be taken away by governments. Human rights must belong to everyone or they belong to no one”

Lastly, I would ask in part what Pierre Elliott Trudeau asked regarding the death penalty, with a modern twist.

Are we, as a society, so lacking in respect for ourselves, so lacking in hope for human betterment, so socially bankrupt that we are ready to accept state allowance of killing as our philosophy? .. . To retain induced abortion choice and euthanasia in the Criminal Code of Canada is to abandon hope and confidence in favour of a despairing acceptance of our inability to cope with adverse circumstances such as unexpected pregnancy, chronic illness, injury, disability or death, except with violence. Has Canada brutalized itself by standing idly by as almost 5 million of its little ones were killed and a further 60,000 adults put to death with their consent?

Maybe like our brave Canadian soldiers at Passchenadale, have to crawl through the muddy fields of this battlefield, find the courage to stand strong in the face of a evil to slow it down so that others may live. Let us renew our commitment to defend every single human life, to challenge Canadian society that appears to now believe that the killing is irrelevant in the face of outcomes and to be unafraid to use, religious, moral and philosophical arguments to challenge the callousness of our age toward human life.

Let us be the hope-givers, the support, the face of love and devotion to the women and families who just need a helping hand to bring their child into the world and above all to be the defenders of every human life even when at the end of life when there are those who are feeling broken and alone and cannot see their own worth and dignity. We are the advocates for life and we must never tire of challenging our governments at all levels to support human life.

Mrs Jakki Jeffs
Executive Director