Letters
Interim criticized
I am saddened whenever I read a good paper or magazine that carries a story that is basically gossiping about someone. How do I teach my children that gossip and calumny are wrong and when they open the paper and read a story doing just that? Bishop-bashing and politician punching is hard to explain to a child. The September 2001 Interim does just that. How can we judge John Turner? Certainly it looks like he made some big mistakes in life, - who hasn't, - but how do we know he has not repented? Articles like this make pro-lifers look like fanatics.
A better approach would be to make an appointment with Turner and talk to him, explain the errors of his way and then pray for him to do the right thing. Politicians do have a hard time making it to the top and doing the right thing. Is it possible to get to the top and still be completely honest? We have lots of examples today of good pro-life politicians falling on the way. We need to befriend them and explain their errors and help them to see where they are wrong. Airing their mistakes makes us all look bad and hurts the chance of anyone good getting to the top.
We need to take a good look at how the media sees pro-lifers and start correcting our own errors. Education one on one within a true friendship is the only thing that is going to work in this post-Christian society. We have to face it, we are looked at as fanatics, even though that is not true. We need to change our own ways. Why should we criticize Turner when he is trying to change his ways?
Dianne Wood
Newmarket, Ont.
Editor's Note: The Interim denies that the article in question was gossip as the information contained therein consisted of confirmed facts. In addition, in the interest of balance, we interviewed both a representative of the archdiocese and John Turner himself, who was given an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised against him. Turner has never repudiated his role in legalizing abortion, including when asked to do so by this newspaper. The Interim does not engage in "bishop bashing" or "politician punching." There is no question of the Archdiocese of Toronto's commitment to the sanctity of human life. In this case, we simply reported the fact that a key figure in the move to legalize abortion in Canada was being asked to chair a prestigious and high-profile archdiocesan event.
Wondering about Knights' support
The headline over a picture in the Peterborough Examiner (Oct. 1, 2001) reads "K. of C. donation." The picture shows members of the Knights of Columbus, District 4, presenting a cheque to the Peterborough Arthritis Society for $4,116. The text states that, "Twenty-nine years ago the Ontario Knights of Columbus took on the Arthritis Society as one of its main charities. Since 1972, the Ontario Knights have donated more than $15 million to the Ontario Arthritis Society." Is it known how much the Ontario Knights have donated, as a group, to the pro-life movement during the same period of time?
Janice M. Glover
Etobicoke, Ont.
Only CHP is pro-life
Being a relatively new subscriber to The Interim, perhaps I am in no position to say, as other readers do, that The Interim is biased in favouring one politician or one particular political party. Yet in the few times I've received your newspaper, I too, have sensed at least a subtle endorsement of either Stockwell Day or his party, the Canadian Alliance, from time to time.
It's okay to endorse someone of like value on principles. In fact, it would be the responsible thing to do, especially for pro-family and pro-life organizations. But that's just my point; I don't think Stockwell Day is any more pro-life than Jean Chretien, and he has as much as said so in that he'll only concern himself with fiscal conservatism, unless enough people insist on a referendum on the abortion issue. Considering this, tell me how is Day's reason for allowing for abortion any different in value (or more justified) then the PMs.
Chretien (like Day) is also personally opposed to abortion, but (wrongly) believe women have freedom of choice that overrules the right of life; furthermore he (and Day) believe that the majority should ultimately decide such issues. Nevertheless, (unlike Day) the PM believes the majority has already rendered their verdict - which is keep the status quo on abortion, whereas Day would first try to take a poll. But fundamentally, there is little difference in their rationalization on the issue.
That is why in the September Interim column "Can pro-life get a fair shake?", I find it ironic that Frank Kennedy would shower Stockwell Day with such accolades of being just as committed to protecting the unborn from a certain death as he would be willing to jump a 10-foot fence in order to rescue a drowning baby. Well I, for one, beg to differ. In addition, why wouldn't Kennedy give an honourable mention to Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party as a perfect example of a pro-lifer who indeed would, without any strings attached, jump the fence to save a drowning baby to the same degree (if elected) he would rescue the unborn from being butchered?
I strongly believe that a pro-life paper such as The Interim should not just recommend but actually endorse the Christian Heritage Party.
Harry De Boer
Wyoming, Ont.
Editor's Note: We reiterate that we are non-partisan and support only elected representatives and candidates that are pro-life, regardless of party, and their efforts to advance pro-life, pro-family initiatives. We also remind readers that the views expressed by bylined columnists do not necessarily represent the views of The Interim. To clarify, however, Day has said he is pro-life and believes embryos should be harvested for experimentation purposes, whereas Chretien has declared himself "pro-choice.
Living one's convictions
I sense what I am about to write may anger many people but my life is not about pleasing people, but about pleasing God. I am the mother of six incredibly wonderful grown children - five sons and one daughter, all married with children of their own. I couldn't be more thankful as a mother, for despite those teen years and adult years they have all turned out to be caring and compassionate human beings.
My story centres around my second son who struggled with diabetes for 24 years and developed severe heart complications in the past two years; and on August 7, 2001 his heart stopped and all efforts to revive him were futile. He was 38. He had such a love of life and so much to give. He was so vital in his children's lives - being totally involved in all their activities. He was a great example of a Christian husband. I love and miss him so much. It seems so unfair.
A month before he died, a friend of mine and I were discussing using stem cells from embryos to help people like my son to recover and live.
The question put to me by my friend was: "If the stem cells from this embryo could save your son, what would you do - would you sacrifice the embryo to save your son?" My answer was not what he expected. I said no - I would not destroy the embryo.
He was quite upset with me and said,"What kind of a mother are you?" His comments stung and no amount of explaining the humanity of the embryo changed his mind. I told him it is not a mother/child issue as he put it to me, but a moral issue. What right do I have to say my child should live and this child (embryo) should die.
Well, my is son is gone - the grief is overwhelming. Do l love my son? Yes. Do I miss my son? Immensely. Would I still make the same decision regarding the use of the embryo's stem cells to save him? Absolutely.
May God have mercy on a society that tries to play God.
Maureen Sullivan
Prince Rupert, B.C.
Dobson on stem cells
In your August issue, I was extremely dismayed to read in Donald De Marco's article on stem cell research, his misleading statement concerning Dr. James Dobson's reaction to President George W. Bush's position on this topic. I requested the transcript of the Aug. 9, 2001 interview on Larry King Live with Dr. Dobson, since I presume this is where De Marco's information came from. It is too bad he didn't do the same before he wrote the article.
I believe that justice requires The Interim clarify this for its readers, I do not believe that this sort of reporting is good journalism. I enclose the transcript, Focus on the Family's position statement and further information on stem cell research. To share this information with your readers might be wise.
Theresa M. Quinn
Toronto, Ont.
Editor's Note: The Interim will do a story on Dr. Dobson's view of stem cell research and his reaction to the Bush announcement in an upcoming issue.
