The Gauntlet® Opinions - Online Only - Letter: Open letter to the president of the university and the president of Campus Pro-Life

As a former graduate of the University of Calgary I am mortified in view of the action being taken against the pro-life group on campus.

In 1985, my graduation year, I could not have imagined the oppressive intimidation tactics that would be used today on a group that simply aims to defend the inalienable right to life. Is this the same university that has touted for many years the axiom of free speech?

I can recall being offended and disgusted when the campus newspaper, the Gauntlet, published a full page spread on the merits of Sado-Masochism back in the '80s. The complaints lodged against this tasteless piece of journalism managed only to generate the familiar credo on the nuances of free expression. The newspaper affirmed the article was well written and refused to acknowledge any objectionable content. The president at the time replied to my letter of grievance with the conventional answer of "not personally being in agreement," but adamantly defending the Gauntlet's right to print it.

So what happened? How did the U of C move from its tenet of free expression to tyrannical oppression threatening pro-life students with arrests, fines and expulsion if they did not comply with the order to shield the reality pictures of aborted babies? The students say they were brought before a forum of eight senior police personnel, the university's general counsel and the head of campus security to impose the illiberal dictate.

The justification given by the U of C is that the display may incite violence and their only intention is to protect the campus. Would it not be more in accordance with your own philosophy, U of C, to vehemently defend freedom of expression and threaten anyone who might be violent against the pro-life display with arrests, fines and expulsion? Evidently not! Suspiciously, it appears that freedom of speech is afforded only to those who tow the lines of a distinct liberal religion now exposed as hardly liberal at all, but fearsomely fascist.

Although freedom of speech is the primary valid argument in this case, the genocide awareness project that the students present is by far the more compelling one. It is intriguing to me that people would have such an objection to the reality pictures of abortions. It is time for some introspection as to why the media can depict the most hideous scenes of violence and the most degrading pornography without so much as a flinch from the public yet these pictures ignite such furor! Why is it that the culture decries puppy mills yet approves abortion mills? We need transparency in our culture.

As a medical professional working in a histopathology lab at a local hospital I had to look at the actual remains of the abortions that were done in the hospital. No one shielded my eyes from it. I was told it was my job to dissect them without even a shred of consideration of the horrific nature of the task. All human tissue must, by law, be processed and placed on a microscope slide for examination.

It was presented to me on my first day on the job simply as a tiresome daily routine that had to be done first thing in the morning and no one even asked if it bothered me to do it. Frankly, I had not thought much about the issue before laying my eyes on the pitiful little victims of lawful abortion. Little hands, feet, eyes, organs, even intact faces were to be found all blended up in a soup of bloodied debris. My reaction can only be described as being jolted from sleep by a taser gun, psychologically speaking. The shroud of deception was abruptly lifted and suddenly I saw myself and my human community unmasked as the callous, utilitarian people we have become. Instead of turning a blind eye, I opted to confront the truth, implore change and attempt to inspire respect for human life and instill civility back into our culture. Sadly, this is not a rapid process.

It is painfully apparent that we have lost sight of our own personhood, our own humanity. A distorted concept of personhood generates distorted behaviors that can be clearly defined as inhuman.

The undistorted, natural tendency of men and women is to welcome and to love profoundly, the new life they generated by love. In this sense, we are dangerously detached from our own essence. Sexuality, deviated and detached from its proper context of love and marital commitment intensifies the exterminating forces against children conceived. The article I complained about way back in the '80s is one example in point of this distortion. The authentic meaning of love is betrayed and replaced with a synthetic, self-seeking superficiality that is not open to welcoming the child conceived by the sexual union.

Essentially, the common practice of abortion is a societal condition of self-aggression. When one is able to finally acknowledge the scathing truth of those graphic images and ask what kind of culture willingly does this to itself, one has to admit it is a culture on the brink of its own annihilation

So GAP group, congratulations for your audacity and your willingness to be persecuted for your belief that every human life possesses inalienable rights and for exposing the naked truth about this cultural practice. Genocide is a term more suitable to the reality than such misleading terms as "choice" or "reproductive health." Science has long proven the humanity of an unborn child. We have no excuse except to admit our barbarous behavior and choose to change or continue on doing worse yet. But how difficult would it be, at the very least, to give birth to unwanted children and give them up to loving homes? Is it so criminal to require this of Canadian citizens? In a country with plummeting birth rates and subsequent population implosion would it not be prudent, if not for love, to at least allow these children to exist?

Share this story:

Reader Comments:

Add your comment or send a letter to the editor

Posted: 2008-11-28 19:32:39
#1 - Perhaps you need to be aware of the correct information before you judge the university and call them fascist.
The issue of pro-life and pro-choice was overshadowed by GAPís insistence of using inappropriate images. The one thing the University told GAP they must do is place the images inward in a circle shape so that students could choose to look or not. There was no problem with GAP protesting and promoting their beliefs. This is not censorship; this is the University taking responsible steps to provide a safe and productive learning environment.
I am not posting this comment to reply to your thoughts on abortion. I fully support and respect your opinions in this manner. My hope is that you understand this was not an issue of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, nor was it anyoneís intention to censor.
As a student of the university I should have the FREEDOM to feel safe to cross campus.

–Yolana, Student/CHR employee

Posted: 2008-11-30 21:58:48
#2 - I have been channeled to this page through the news that has arisen across our land on this issue.

Forgive me but I don't believe the comments of the #1 post. If we think GAP was not censored (or intention to censor) because of their belief I think we are a little naive. If it was not considered please forgive me, maybe I'm just hardened by age.

I do not, nor have I, attended a university but have always respected the institution. I am starting to question that respect.

It certainly surprises me that censorship of ideas would come from a place such as this. It is also interesting that the best written letter is relegated to the online only page.

You may say this is not an issue of Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice but it is my guess that it is the only issue that has caused such a call for censorship. I may be wrong; I don't frequent this paper often.

If you are worried about the FREEDOM to feel safe to cross a campus I would suggest you start to think of the future and the freedoms you will lose if the attitude of censorship continues to grow. This says nothing of the attitude to terminate life so easily. If that attitude continues to grow at the rate it is being accepted I would imagine the cry will be to terminate other non respected life. Those in nursing homes really are a burden to society are they not? And what of those mentally challenged. Oh, yes, I'm sorry, we are already letting them die in what we so nicely call post birth abortions. Where do we get this language? I hope it is not made up in universities also.

The changes I have seen in my 50+ year's scares me for all you younger people. What kind of world are you planning on making? Maybe that is something you should be thinking about, or take a history class on. What has happen to those who propagated both issues that are being brought up, censorship and the devaluing of life whether it be by age or by gender or by ethnicity.

I have been told that he who controls Language controls society. Pro-Choice: what a nice name for Pro-Killing of the helpless. What kind of Choice is that in what we call an advanced country?

I thank you Lorraine for your wonderful article and to the Gauntlet for printing it, at least on line.

–GW, Supervisor

Posted: 2008-12-01 13:50:43
#3 - GW,
I believe The Gauntlet saves its print paper for students.
Again, I will not argue the issue of pro-life and pro-choice (although I MUST note that pro-choice does not equal pro-killers, pro-choice does include supporting pro-life, whereas pro-life does not allow for pro-choice).
I think it is easy for you, as an outsider who didn't see the pictures to make this judgment.
I also think that it was a disgrace by the GAP to exploit the horrific photographs from the holocaust etc to advance their point.
With every freedom gained, freedoms are lost.

–Yolana, Student/CHR employee

Posted: 2008-12-02 01:05:11
#4 - "Choice" by itself sounds good, until it is put into a specific context: a choice to maim, to dismember, to kill. Paraphrasing Peter Kreeft: "Abortion is not a complex issue at all. If it is not wrong for bigger, stronger people to kill smaller, weaker people, then what IS wrong?" That we uncritically accept "choice" as a moral good in the particular context of killing small humans (and that is what unborn babies are, after all) is a sign of how distorted our sensibilities have become. Mother Teresa lamented: "If a mother can kill an unborn child in her womb, what is left of the West to save?" What, indeed? Our slide towards economic ruin, even our current political confusion, are merely symptoms of the corruption that festers deep in our very being as we suction, dismember, and burn our unwanted brothers and sisters out of existence. We applaud Morgentaler while he eagerly helps women disavow their motherhood in the most violent, cruel way possible: by killing their very own flesh and blood children. I know why people regard the GAP displays with fear and loathing: because the images speak a truth few dare to acknowledge: we dispose of our children because we don't want them, yet we refuse to call the act what it is, so we use another, nicer name: "choice." We have become despicable cowards, hiding behind weasel words, and we'd rather censor those who dare to point out the ugly truth of what we have become. The GAP displays are a ghastly mirror reflecting back to us the indifference we try to paper over with words like "choice," and of course we can't bear to look.

–Victor Panlilio

Posted: 2008-12-02 11:04:26
#5 - Mr. "Panlilio", I had no idea you are such a satirist, as your's was the most insightful condemnation of the GAP to have appeared this week.

–Anonymous Cow Herd

Posted: 2008-12-02 11:34:42
#6 - The Bushman smothers their infants, if they are born during a drought. It is a necessity of life for them.
I would rather someone not go through an unloving environment; rather not have someone suffer their entirety in their life. So my CHOICE is to lessen the suffering.
This is MY TRUTH, you have YOURS.

–MY TRUTH VS YOUR TRUTH, Student

Posted: 2008-12-02 11:42:58
#7 - If someone posted a giant billboard of a vagina, I'd be pretty disgusted.
But the TRUTH of the matter is every woman has one.

–Curious

Posted: 2008-12-03 15:03:20
#8 - The reason why this letter, and some of the others, ran online was because it was received late into our production process after the majority of our paper had been laid out.
Though we would prefer to run every letter we receive, obviously sometimes that is not entirely possible due to space constraints.

–Jon Roe, Editor-in-Chief

Posted: 2009-11-23 10:41:40
#9 - "Former graduate"? Was your degree revoked?

–d, lay-about

Views expressed are those of the posters and do not necessarily reflect that of the Gauntlet.