WHAT IS ‘INCLUSION’? HOW HAS IT BECOME THAT WE HAVE GROWN TO DEFINE ‘INCLUSION’ AS THE ‘RIGHT’ TO A ‘SAFE ABORTION’, THEREBY EXCLUDING MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, HALF OF WHOM ARE FUTURE WOMEN, WHO WILL NEVER ‘ACQUIRE’ THE RIGHT TO ‘CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES’, FOR THEIR VERY NATURAL RIGHT TO BE VEILED IN MORTAL FLESH WILL HAVE BEEN UNCEREMONIOUSLY EXCLUDED BY THE DUBIOUS VIRTUE OF THE LEGAL VOID IN OUR COUNTRY, WHICH REFUSES TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE ITSELF AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION. HOW THEN, CAN THE DEFENDERS OF THIS VERY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE FROM CONCEPTION ONWARDS, BE BRANDED AS PERSONS WHO PRACTICE ‘EXCLUSION’, BY PURPORTEDLY SEEKING TO LIMIT A WOMAN’S ‘RIGHT TO A SAFE ABORTION’ (WHICH IS UNTO ITSELF A VIRTUAL OXYMORON), WHEN IN FACT WE SEEKETH ONLY TO DEFEND AND PROMOTE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ALL: THE RIGHT TO LIFE ITSELF! FOR WITHOUT THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA TO STATUTE ON THIS MOST FUNDAMENTAL OF ALL RIGHTS IS TO NEGATE AND TO RENDER NULL AND VOID THE ARGUMENTS OVER ALL OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF HOMOSEXUALS AND THEIR RIGHT TO MARRY,(AND TO SUBSEQUENTLY NOT PROCREATE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES I MIGHT ADD), AND OF WOMEN AND THEIR RIGHT TO ‘EQUALITY’ (BY VIRTUE OF ‘BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING’ AND SEEKING PERSONAL VALIDATION THROUGH EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING BUT CONJUGAL BLISS AND MOTHERHOOD), THEREBY ENABLING US TO WANDER FURTHER AND FURTHER EAST OF EDEN IN OUR SEEMINGLY NEVER ENDING QUEST FOR TEMPORAL AGGRANDIZEMENT AT THE COST OF THE SANCTITY OF OUR IMMORTAL SOULS.
Wow, here I go again. This time I’ve really stuck my foot in it. Reproductive rights. What a sticky issue of conscience. Even Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, an ardent Evangelical Christian and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada at that won’t even go near the topic with a ten foot pole, for fear of getting shouted down and causing massive divisions within his caucus and essentially polarizing the country into an American style ‘culture war’ over a very morally, religiously and philosophically tinged debate.
But why are Pro-Lifers such as myself and my comrades in arms always ghettoized and marginalized as some sort of bunch of religious fanatics or ‘intolerant’ or ‘anti-women’s rights’ people who are wanting to ‘take us back to the Stone Age.’ It all seems to focus around ‘rights’: Who’s rights are being protected and who’s rights are being infringed upon. Right now, as I see it, the secular women’s rights lobby sees it as being a cut and dried equation of ‘abortion on demand.’ That women should not be ‘oppressed’ by the so-called ‘scourge’ of ‘un-wanted pregnancies’ or ‘un-planned pregnancies’, that basically life should only be brought into this world when it’s ‘convenient’, or expedient, when supposedly the child will have a ‘good home’ and will be ‘well cared for by loving parents’ and so on. If that were the case, the vast majority of all human life on this planet would have never come to pass, including one little boy in particular named Jesus.
Imagine if Mary had decided to get an abortion and St. Joseph would have divorced her quietly, as Jewish law allowed him to do at the time. ‘What, you’re pregnant? And you don’t know who the Father is? You say it’s the Holy Spirit? Are you mad woman?’ Imagine that! So from a ‘rights perspective’, Pro-Lifers are essentially trying to engender once again a culture of just that, of life, not death! We’re not trying to ‘take away’ any woman’s ‘right’ to anything. If anything, we’re trying to give women the ‘true choice’ or ‘true right’ to make an ‘enlightened choice’ between bringing a beautiful baby boy or girl into this world, and having all the love and support that can be had to help her to ‘make a go of it’, or to give into the knee jerk reaction of fear and loathing and see this beautiful life within her as somehow being a burden or an impediment to her ‘freedom’ or her ‘education’ or her ‘professional development’, or that she will become ‘yet another statistic’ of a Welfare Mother in poverty.
If men are encouraged by a well-financed Pro-Life movement, to ‘stick around’ and not ‘bugger off’ at the slightest sign that the woman they had sex with is pregnant, then perhaps we might be on our way towards beginning to re-sanctify the sacred bond between a man and a woman and to make the option of marriage and family life something much more palatable and alluring to the young couple, who may have been attracted to each other initially, but lacked the nurturing element to help them grow closer to one another as a couple and to grow in love and affection for one another as they embark upon their new journey together of being husband and wife, Father and Mother of a lovely child whom they will raise in a spirit of love and affection and for whom they will be willing and able to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure its well-being by engaging in productive labour and being responsible in their behaviour so as to provide a good home for their child.
So much of our society is geared towards a culture of youth and recreation, leisure and irresponsibility as well as sophomoric and juvenile types of Southern California-styles of ‘Skater Boy’, ‘reefer head’, or ‘Dude, where’s my car?’ types of media portrayals of late teen, early twenties behaviour, especially for young males, which is unfortunate, because this is precisely the age when the young male and female most need to be mentored and spiritually guided in the right direction by forces which are conducive to their temporal and spiritual well-being, and not being seduced, which literally means to be ‘led astray’, by such worldly temptations as the misuse of their sexual prowess and the abuse of the temple of their bodies through profligate consumption of food, drink and other substances, and other forms of ‘riotous living’, as the story of the Prodigal Son so eloquently describes it.
So what would occur if the health care and social services system were to be restructured to give equal treatment and equal funding at all levels, including in legislation and in the crucial public funding of services for Pro-Life organizations so as to give them equal access to government funds to provide services to the public? For if abortion is a publically-funded service funded by tax dollars, why isn’t the Pro-Life option, in all fairness, being funded in equal measure by the taxpayers of our country to give women equal access to ‘true choice’ and ‘true fairness’ with regards to their reproductive health? Why aren’t young men who get young women pregnant not being counselled by publically-funded Pro-Life organizations to be encouraged to ‘stick with it’ and to be given the tools, both temporal and spiritual, such as job skills, food, clothing, life skills coaching, and parenting skills such as anger management? Why is the Pro-Choice option getting funded by the taxpayers to eliminate future taxpayers, when the Pro-Life movement could be being funded to provide our country with future taxpayers to pay for the future security of our government services and our pensions down the line?
It’s no longer a question of ‘religious fanatics’ versus ‘women’s rights’ folks. It’s a question of whether or not we actually want to have a civilization around in the future to be able to continue the notion of the idea we call Canada. What does Canada stand for anyways? Are we a country of shopping malls and big box stores and huge McMansions on postage stamp sized lots with no yards with DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) living in them both working their butts off at jobs they hate so as to fill up their huge cardboard house full of stuff so as to better be miserable, instead of having kids and filling their homes with God’s love and the joy of family life?
It’s gotten to the point that Pro Life clubs can’t even get the right to organize on College and University campuses because, as I mentioned in my opening bold-faced statement, they are being accused of advocating ideas which are considered to be ‘not inclusive.’ What? So let me get this straight. People who advocate for the protection of the very right to life itself from conception to natural death are considered to be people who are practicing a sort of ‘discriminatory exclusion’ of certain people from society who think differently from us, by virtue of the fact that we are arguing against the structurally and legally entrenched, perpetrated and perpetuated practice of the legalized termination of the lives and therefore the very right to life itself of millions of innocent persons in our country and around the world, because we seek only to define the true definition of the very right to life itself and to give the female bearers of this life a truly fair and equitable choice in how they ultimately choose to express their reproductive rights, and therefore we should summarily be ‘excluded’ from public discourse for not being sufficiently ‘inclusive’?
Like ‘duh!’ Can you spell ‘Perversion of Justice?’ Mr. Speaker, I heartily protest the metaphysical corruption and perversion of thought and action which has been construed and carried out and foisted upon the good people of Canada. All other rights are null and void from henceforth until the Parliament of Canada statutes on the fundamental rights of the human person from conception to natural death Mr. Speaker. For if the laws of humanity and the lawmakers of this fair land dareth not to define the fundamental rights of human life itself from the moment of conception unto natural death, then I daresay Mr. Speaker, wither Canada, and wither all humanity, for the laws of humanity will have failed to live up to the sacred charge given to us by the laws of nature, who unto herself was ordained by the laws of the Almighty Creator Himself, who created us all in His image to go forth and multiply and be bountiful and to fill the earth with goodness and beauty.
We hath not come unto this mortal coil to be spiral architects, to be sorcerers of madness, erecting towering temples of glass, steel and concrete to Mammon, which deign to scrape the sanctity of the sky. Yea verily I tell thee, we hath been incarnated in this veil of mortal flesh, in all our dubiously concupiscent and conspicuous pride, to ‘…love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.’ (Luke 10:27)
This then, is our charge, and we must labour with love and devotion to accomplish it in due form and with due diligence Mr. Speaker, always keeping in mind to relinquish not our predisposition to engender a culture of love and life, happiness and peace in our Great Village of Kanata. Thank you Mr. Speaker.