On September 28, 2011, Senator Gerry St. Germain cited the case of Katrina Effert, a young Canadian woman who killed her baby son Rodney and ultimately received a suspended sentence for infanticide, in his plea for the Canadian government to step up and take an official stand on infanticide and abortion.
Show #111, Part 4, audio only:
By Terry O’Neill – The Tri-City News
Once upon a time, there was a people — an entire country, moreover — that professed a great love of all things natural. Except, that is, for one of the most important natural processes of all.
The people, let’s call them Canadians, praised the natural beauty of their great land. They looked in awe at the magnificent mechanisms of the natural world around them.
They passed laws against pollution, carbon emissions, and the dumping of toxic wastes in order to protect nature. They preserved great expanses of natural eco-systems.
Why, they even bought natural foods and natural remedies in copious quantities.
But these nature-loving Canadians had a blind spot. While they loved, adored or even worshipped the many natural things around them, they ignored a vital aspect of their own natural beings.
You see, nature has chosen to give we humans an equal number of baby girls and baby boys. It’s only natural, since one woman and one man come together to procreate.
One would think that Canadians, of all people, should recognize this essential, natural balance. Instead, they have willingly allowed a decidedly unnatural process to take place—the gender-based culling of unborn baby girls.
In fact, Canada has no law whatsoever regulating abortion, with the result that gender imbalances are beginning to show up in some communities, according to a 2006 report, “Canada’s Lost Daughters,” by investigative journalist Andrea Mrozek, now with the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
The problem is more acute overseas, where hundreds of thousands of female fetuses are aborted every year in countries such as India and China, according to a recent Maclean’s cover story. Nevertheless, Canada has no official foreign policy opposing sex-based abortion.
My colleague on the other side of the page is ready to sacrifice these unwanted baby girls on the altar of feminism and choice, and also professes to see my opposition to the rampant purging of unborn girls as a none-too-subtle pro-life initiative.
I cannot claim to be without convictions in this matter. But I would rather be guilty of defending the natural goodness and intrinsic beauty of newly created human life than be responsible for abetting the destruction of a class of humanity because of prejudice, ignorance or misguided ideology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Submit your own Q≥A to jim@roadkillradio.com
By Terry O’Neill
Following the death of Jack Kevorkian last week, at least two news stories gave prominence to the fact that his lawyer issued a statement describing his client’s passing as “peaceful. “ Lawyer Mayer Morganroth was further quoted as saying his client, “didn’t feel a thing,” and added that no artificial attempts were made to keep Kevorkian alive.
Mr. Morganroth’s statement is significant in light of the monomaniacal focus of Kevorkian’s controversial life: to overturn laws that do not allow people to obtain assistance in killing themselves. Most often, his campaign was associated with terminally ill people who were seeking to avoid a painful or “undignified” death.
One suspects that the lawyer disclosed details surrounding the way in which Kevorkian died because, in part, he anticipated questions which would quite understandably be asked about this crucial event. Just as it’s entirely natural for us to wonder whether the tough-guy gangster holds true to his reputation when he’s being strapped into the electric chair, or whether he turns into a blubbering baby, it is also important for us to know whether Kevorkian, the arch-advocate for pain-free passing, had ended up enduring an uncomfortable or even painful death.
One has the feeling that Mr. Morganroth’s statement was also designed to inform the public that Kevorkian had not been the victim of some sort of cosmic Karma intent on teaching him a last-minute lesson about the untidy nature of death.
Or, perhaps, the good lawyer wanted to assure Kevorkian’s many supporters that the convicted killer had not become a traitor to the “right to die” cause and had willingly endured a painful death.
Left unsaid was whether Kevorkian had received pain-killing drugs to ease his passage. Perhaps this information was intentionally omitted because it could have been seen as a testament to the growing ability of doctors to control the pain that so many terminal patients endure. Ironically, evidence of this expanding expertise is often used by opponents of assisted suicide to bolster their case that there is no need to legalize the “right to die.”
Also notable is lawyer Morganroth’s declaration that no artificial means were used to extend Kevorkian’s life. One wonders what this little tidbit is supposed to signal. Given the arc of Kevorkian’s career, one might conclude that he had issued a standing “do not resuscitate” order that reflected his desire to avoid any painful or depressing complications that might have followed some sort of heroic intervention.
The final thoughts that come to mind are related to the fundamental way in which the lawyer wanted us to view his client’s death. Specifically, one wonders whether Mr. Morganroth was attempting to shape our understanding of what constitutes a “good death.”
Specifically, did he mean for us to conclude that, by not dying in pain and by eschewing “artificial” means to extend his life, Kevorkian died a “good death”? Maybe so.
But the public should not be misled into believing that a pain-free ending, in which one gives oneself up without a struggle, is the only road to a “good death.” Many other ways to die can be at least equally “good.” For example, we regularly talk about how cancer victims “fight” their disease with “courage,” using every means possible to beat back the deadly scourge. Are their subsequent deaths not “good deaths” too? I would think they are.
We’ll give the great poet Dylan Thomas the last word:
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Recorded 31 May 2011, this is the RoadKill Radio interview of Magda and Kevin of Salmon Arm, British Columbia. Their case is well-documented by People Assisting Parents Association at PA-PA.ca.
On the afternoon of 5 June 2011, Ministry officials abducted this couple’s newborn baby – the second one they abducted in two years – at the Royal Columbian Hospital in Burnaby, BC. The RCMP removed Kevin and his parents from the hospital. The local police refused to get involved. The Ministry continues to terrorize this poor, innocent couple.
Also watch PA-PA.ca’s 31 May 2011 interview that reveals Tactics of Government Baby Snatching in Canada.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
RoadKill Radio and National Post columnist Barbara Kay teamed up Tuesday night to answer those important questions.
The first guests on the provocative weekly Internet public affairs radio show were the parents of a pre-born child that the BC Ministry of Children and Families was waiting to snatch as she emerged from the womb. The parents—a Salmon Arm, BC couple who had come to the Lower Mainland to escape the clutches of the Ministry—had in their possession a letter that affirmed them as loving parents; but it also chastised them for their reluctance to cooperate with the Ministry in making plans for their children!
The question that emerges: whose children are they?
The family—whose surname is being withheld to protect the children—is under assault by the Ministry because the mother and father refuse to accept the sovereignty of the provincial ministry over their private lives.
One 18-month-old son was apprehended by the Ministry at birth—even before his mother could nurse him.
Special Bulletin: They did it again!
The couple’s second baby has now been kidnapped at birth. In late afternoon, June 5, 2011 – as this edition of RKR News was being prepared – at the Royal Columbian Hospital in Burnaby, BC, Ministry officials once again overextended their moral and legal rights and kidnapped a baby from these poor victims of the corrupt system. The father and paternal grandparents were escorted out of the hospital by Burnaby RCMP.
Stay tuned for further updates on this tragedy.
~~~~~~~~~~
In a later item on this week’s broadcast, National Post columnist Barbara Kay, citing last week’s news story about a Toronto family that has chosen to conceal their third child’s gender—allowing baby Storm to choose his/her gender later in life—noted that gender identity is a reality, not a political construct, as the Toronto parents seem to assume.
Commented RoadKill Radio co-host Kari Simpson: “I knew, before I read the story, that one of the parents [must be] a teacher—and a teacher of a ‘Social Justice’ curriculum.”
Barbara Kay added: “It’s a very feminized world out there. This little boy… who says his favourite book is 10,000 Dresses… where would you even find a book like that? Is he exposed to Bob the Builder, or soldier books, or adventure books where manly courage is involved? I think he’s not even being exposed to stories where standardized masculine practices are involved; the things he’s being exposed to are stereotypically female.”
Kari Simpson: “With a father who’s a Social Justice teacher… [who] thinks it’s obnoxious to make decisions for children.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Another story that broke this week was the May 27, 2011 decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada that, essentially, removes free will from a citizen under special circumstances. In this case, a woman willingly allowed herself to relinquish consciousness in the consensual sex act of erotic asphyxiation – something she and her partner had done on repeated prior occasions – only to have the Supreme Court come along and stick its nose into the couples’ bedroom. The 6-3 decision ruled that unconsciousness negates any consent, that “yes” means “no”, and therefore the man committed a sex crime.
Considering the typical slippery slope of such radical legal decisions, the Court has essentially criminalized waking your wife with a good morning kiss, and snuggling with your dozing boyfriend.
Please visit our latest show’s archive at RoadKillRadio.com