“Our once great western Christian civilization is dying. If this matters to followers of Jesus Christ, then we must set aside our denominational differences and work together to strengthen the things that remain and reclaim what has been lost. Evangelicals and Catholics must stand together to re-establish that former Christian culture and moral consensus. We have the numbers and the organization but the question is this: Do we have the will to win this present spiritual battle for Jesus Christ against secularism? Will we prayerfully and cooperatively work toward a new Christian spiritual revival ― or will we choose to hunker down in our churches and denominationalisms and watch everything sink into the spiritual and moral abyss of a New Dark Age?” - Mark Davis Pickup

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Children viewed as punishment corrupts human hearts

In 1994, Mother Teresa was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying:

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters." [My emphasis added.]

Fourteen years later, confirming Mother Teresa's assertion that abortion fosters anti-child hostility, Barack Obama said "If [my daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." A mentality that views inconvenient babies as punishment is common in 21st Century North America. It is a form of internal violence that can corrupt the human heart at a most primal level.

No baby should be ever be viewed as punishment or unworthy of love, nurture, or burdonsome -- regardless of the the circumstances revolving around how or when they were conceived. Every life should be viewed as a gift and valuable.

If North America is as enlightened as they believe, then surely we have room for every child, not just those who are convenient.

Which view of children do you want? Mother Teresa's inclusive value of all children or Barack Obama's selective value given to only some children?

Both Mother Teresa and Barack Obama received Nobel Peace Prizes. Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 after more than 30 years working with the poorest of the poor in the slums of Calcutta. Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009, after a mere 9 months in the White House for his vast accomplishments, doing, -- well, er, not much. Who deserved the Nobel Prize more: Mother Teresa or B.O.?

The greatest defender of peace is the person who defends the weakest, the most vulnerable, the unwanted, the speechless, the defenseless -- always and everywhere.

Children as punishment ... what a despicable attitude.

Mark Pickup

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Show your support for Baby Isaiah and his parents!

See - http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/Baby+Isaiah+stays+life+support/2490599/story.html
"Baby Isaiah stays on life support for now", Edmonton Journal, 27 January 2010.

As you read in my last blog (see below), Canadian parents Isaac and Rebecka May of Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, are in the throes of a life and death battle for their three month old baby Isaiah James. He was born oxygen deprived and is ventilator dependent. Doctors at the Stollery Children's Hospital in the provincial Capital city of Edmonton want to turn off Baby Isaiah's respirator which will result in his death. Rebecka and Isaac want 90 days more to see what progress Isaiah will make. Let's be clear, they are willing to accept the terrible prospect no parent wants to face. They simply want to exhaust all possibilities their baby might be able to live. And so they went to court to get an injunction to allow Baby Isaiah 90 more days. That's not asking too much; if they must live for the rest of their lives having lost Baby Isaiah, let them have the consolation that every avenue and chance -- however remote -- was given to their little one.

Yesterday, Court of Queen's Bench judge Michelle Chrighton asked for more expert medical opinions about Baby Isaiah's case and gave the May's lawyer until February 19th to find a pediatric neurologist to lend an opinion about Isaiah along with an indepenent neonatologist Dr. Richard Taylor.

Rebecka and Isaac established a Facebook page for Baby Isaiah called "Prayers for Isaiah". More than 25 thousand people of good will have become members offering their prayers and encouragement to the Mays. I encourage readers of this blog to do the same (and invite their friends to send notes of encouragement). Offer moral support to this courage young couple fighting for their baby Isaiah James May. Let's double that number and show the Mays that 50,000 of their closest friends stand in solidarity with them!

Regardless of how things turn out, I want people of good will everywhere to send a short note to the Mays and let them know the world stands with them in their struggle. If Isaac and Rebecka must face the death of their baby boy, we stand with them in their grief. If Baby Isaiah is to live, we stand with this family in their joy regardless of any special needs he may have. Where there is life, there is hope.

You can also send a short letter or card of support to: Rebecka and Isaac Mays, c/o Ronald McDonald House, 7726-107 Street, Northwest, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6E 4K3.

Alert all your friends, and thank you.

Mark Pickup

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The case of Baby Isaiah, and what you can do.

Baby Isaiah James May was born on October 24th 2009 after a 40 hour labour. His umbilical cord was wrapped around his throat, depriving his brain of oxygen. Baby Isaiah was air-lifted to the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Baby Isaiah was put on a ventilator and his treating physician declared him brain dead. A letter was sent to to his parents telling them baby Isaiah's respirator would be turned off at 2:00 pm on January 20th 2010. This would result in Isaiah's dead by suffocation. His parents, Rebecka and Isaac May, were stunned. They decided to fight the medical decision and hired a lawyer to get an injunction to stop the action by the Stollery Children's' Hospital and give their baby 90 more days to see if he will improve. It's good.


Apparently nobody told baby Isaiah he's brain dead. The little fighter is making progress -- albeit painfully slow -- but each day he does something new. He has gained weight, he responds to pain, he moves his limbs, responds to pain, occasionally takes a breath over the respirator. His mom Rebecka says she sees new things in her baby every day. Despite this, the hospital is intend on removing baby Isaiah's respirator. Rebecka and Isaac May sent their lawyer to court to press their case for another 3 months.

The judge stopped the hospital from removing Isaiah's respirator and gave the parents' lawyer until January 27th to find alternate expert opinion to counter the treating physician's opinion that further treatment is futile.

I sent out an appeal across North America for names of another neonatologist to counter the view that Isaiah's position is hopeless. Names started coming in and I forwarded them to the family's lawyer. She will provide the medical records of Isaiah along with video of him, and ask for their assessments.


The case of baby Isaiah is gathering attention from around North America. I was contacted by a New York radio talk show, as well as other media from across North America. Then American Life League President Judie Brown decided to feature the case of Baby Isaiah in her commentary on Monday, January 25th. Her commentaries have an international following; she is a member of the Pontifical Council on Life and Family.

If the Alberta court sides with the Edmonton hospital's stated intent to kill baby Isaiah, North America will be watching. Good. There has been too much infanticide and euthanasia happening quietly in hospitals across North America. It's time the hush stops! We need to protect disabled and vulnerable people not kill them. If the court sides with killing baby Isaiah, and against his loving parents, it will be time to ask ourselves: What kind of people have we become!?

Rebecka and Isaac May are asking for 90 days to see if Isaiah makes progress. Is that asking too much?! Some people have brought up the expense as reason not to grant a 90 day reprieve for Isaiah. After all, they say, "Alberta's Health Care system is in financial trouble." That's a selective financial concern. We pay for thousands of abortions each year, no questions asked. A woman can have an abortion for any reason what so ever, or no reason at all. She doesn't even need a doctor's referral. Just call up the abortion clinic and make an appointment. She can have as many abortions as she wants. It's all covered at taxpayers' expense. Millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars are spent each year for abortion on demand! Don't tell me we can't afford to care for a sick baby boy by the name of Isaiah James May.

Medicine and health care are supposed to be life affirming not life denying. Remember, history ultimately judges societies based upon how they treated their weakest and most vulnerable people.


I ask readers of this blog to contact the Stollery Children's Hospital to let them know you expect that world class facility to do the right thing and give baby Isaiah May 90 more days to improve before removing his respirator. That's not asking too much of the hospital. Call the hospital at (780)342-8080. Email the treating physician Dr. Ernest Phillipos at ernest.phillipos@albertahealthservices.ca Ask him to give baby Isaiah 90 more days on a respirator as his parents requested. Copy your email to Alberta's health minister at health.minister@gov.ab.ca

Thank you.

Mark Pickup

Also see baby Isaiah's facebook. Go to Facebook and type "prayers for Isaiah". For more background see http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/familyhealth/article/753685--parents-fight-to-keep-newborn-on-life-support

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Three pillars of truth for secular minds

Many people within the great pro-Life cause have wondered how they can win over or attract people with non-religious, secular mindsets. After all, the pro-Life movement is largely peopled with Christians. It's a tough prospect but not impossible for those secularists who are open-minded.

In as far as I can determine, the pro-Life position must be presented to the secularist on the basis of three pillars of truth which they can accept(in as much as they will accept the idea of Objective truth):

The secularist must be persuaded on the premise of universal human rights and fostering human inclusion. In order for rights to be universal they must include all human life or they are not universal, but selective. This is the first pillar of truth to present to the secularist. Use the slogan "All human rights for all humans". Secularists love slogans, it gives the impression they've thought an issue throught and have cleverly boiled it down to a few words.

We must establish very early the biological fact that life reproduced sexually begins at conception. This is not opinion or metaphysical contention ― it is plain experimental evidence. This is a critical point for people to understand. It is the second pillar of truth for the secularist. Use the slogan "Human rights begin when human life begins."

At this point the secularist is apt object and say, “Surely you’re not asking that an embryo should have the same rights as a baby or a women!?” Well, yes, that’s what we are proposing. Anything less is sophistry and bigotry.

This concept is foreign to modern sensibilities. Remember, it’s been over 40 years of abortion on demand in Canada and 37 years since Roe v Wade in America. The philosophy of “Choice” is deeply ingrained into the public mindset as the highest of ideals. Life advocates must patiently present the ethical shift toward always choosing life under every circumstance and place ... as though it is a new and revolutionary moral paradigm shift. And to many secular ears and hearts, the idea of always choose life is a new paradigm. Remember, many secularists do not view every life as valuable or worthy of living.

The choice of always choosing life must be presented on a foundation of love and inclusion. Life advocates must speak in terms of universal human rights, within the human family, community, inclusion, acceptance of disability and extreme age as enriching our collective human experience not detracting from it.

We can appeal to great human rights documents such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The American Declaration of Independence and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They all place the Right to Life first, and rightly so. Without the Right to Life guaranteed, all other rights become arbitrary and uncertain. This is the third pillar of truth we present to the secularist.

The inherent problem with appealing to secularists about Life issues is that there is no consensus of objective truth to which we can appeal. A secularist may agree on one or even two of the pillars of truth but when the third is presented they are apt to see they are being asked to place truth over agenda and abandon previous held views. They may have a caricature of "pro-Lifers" as shrill and unreasonably rigid. Their thinking is not linear or logical. Their conclusions are often driven by appealing agendas or unstable feelings.

Remember these are people whose truth is relative, vague and situational. The secularist is motivated by self-interest and personal autonomy more than the Common Good.

It is into this environment that we re-introduce love as the highest ideal rather than "Choice". We re-introduce other-centered love that always gives life and lives life. Life advocates must lovingly promote the giving and living of life in all its eventualities and all its circumstances. To do this is to celebrate love. To take away or deny life – whether it be one moment after conception or the senile old person in a nursing home, or the anguished sufferer of a terminal or chronic disease, is the antithesis of love.

Life advocates must present this extravagant and expensive love as a new ethos and the bedrock for a Culture of life and inclusion for everyone to enjoy from conception to natural death.

Mark Pickup

Sunday, January 10, 2010

This song is for you, far away

Read Mark Pickup's latest blog "This song is for you, far away" see http://markpickup.org