Monday, November 30, 2015
This worrisome. Robert Lewis Dear could face capital punishment for his crimes.
We do not need to kill someone to protect society. I hope pro-life groups call for prosecutors to reject the death penalty. The killing needs to stop. By everyone.
Not because abortion isn’t murder, which it is. Not because violence is always wrong, because it isn’t. But because clinic violence is an act of civil war. We have not exhausted all non-violent means of fighting this evil. The violent means might fail, and the destruction that they would cause would outweigh even the horror of a million dead children each year.
It’s appalling that we even have to speak of such things in America. But that’s not prolifers’ fault. We’re not the ones who favor mass killing in every city in America, who sell human beings dismembered to medical labs, and hide behind the courts because the voters aren’t with us. We’re not the side favoring violence, though it suits your side to accuse us of it. Psychologists have a name for that. It’s “projection.”
If we had the means to fight a civil war on this, we would have the means to fight this democratically. There is no need to use violence.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
The question of Syrian refugees has occasioned a field day for those who sneer at Christians. To wit, anyone who questions the importation of tens of thousands of people about whom we know very little and have understandable security concerns is, ipso facto, making baby Jesus cry.
Knock it off, gaylord.
I honestly don't know what Jesus would do about the , and neither do you. Certainly, he would prescribe love and compassion, but how best to apply that? Is welcoming a city-sized population of unknowable people from a region rife with terrorism compassionate to those who might be put at risk?
Would the best thing for Syrians be to establish safe zones close to their home, or even to help them win their country back?
These are difficult questions, with which many good people are grappling.
But it requires an egregious caliber of self-regard to suppose you know for certain what the answer is, based on a book you probably haven't read and don't believe, and to encapsulate your high-mindedness in a cartoon on your Facebook page.
Dear Atheists: You don't get to tell Christians how to practice their faith. Chances are you're clueless about it.
It's an awesome column. Go and read the whole thing.
For centuries, actually, near two millennia, prophecy prognosticators have been making claims like those of Laurie’s based on the events of their day. My library is filled with books claiming that the end was near during WW I, WW II, the Russian revolution, the militarization of Japan, the French Revolution, every European war ever fought, and even the rise of Islam hundreds of years ago.
For decades Christian prophecy writers have been telling their followers that we’re living in the last days and Jesus is coming soon. Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith assured their readers that it would all come to an end before 1988. That was 27 years ago. If we go back to 1970 when Lindsey wrote , it’s been 45 years. How much damage do you think has been done to our nation because millions of Christians were convinced that nothing could be done to change things because they were convinced they were living in the “last days”?
The world has always seemed like it was turmoil. It was in turmoil during the Roman Persecutions, during the Muslim and barbarian invasions, during the Black Death, during the Reformation, during the French Revolution, World Wars I and II, the Cold War and now the age of Muslim Terrorism.
I think people who predict the last days like the idea that they have insider information. They have the knowledge, they are the elect, they will be saved, and the rest of the world will not unless you get on board.
Jesus said it: No one knows the day or the hour. The message he wanted to send was keep alert, not know the date of the end of the world beforehand.
Friday, November 27, 2015
I'm sorry to copy-paste the whole thing, but this is an extremely intriguing question:
Let's imagine for a moment that we had Star Trek style technology available and that made "beaming" the z/e/f (zygote/embryo/fetus) into a biohazard container the preferred and safest abortion method.
Let's say that the technology was further modified so that the z/e/f could be beamed instead into an artificial womb where it could complete gestating and be placed for adoption. Let's say that the entire cost of the artificial womb were paid for voluntarily by pro-adoption people so that there was no additional expense to the woman or to her insurance company or to the government.
Would you consider beaming the z/e/f into the safe place to be an acceptable alternative to beaming it into the biohazard container? Or would the destruction of the z/e/f be a key and non-negotiable component of the right to end the pregnant state?
I kinda hope you post this question, too. I would really like to see what feminists have to say about it.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
I couldn't agree more!
And you know what, even if the couple are the most contracepting, selfish, profane and worldly people around, it's still none of your business. That's for them to work out.
I've wondered what makes people feel entitled to know about people's reproductive intentions. I think it might have to do with the Oprah-fication of culture in the 1980s. Suddenly talk shows started to discuss what would have been intimate and unshareable details about one's life, and millions now felt that these once unshareable thoughts were now up for conversation. It no longer felt rude to as private questions, because they were no longer private, at least as far as network television was concerned.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Nothing to see here, folks!
But the play’s director called it “absurd” for people to make a connection between the play and the subsequent acts of violence against the individuals it depicts, stating in an opinion piece posted on the theater’s website earlier this month that the production merely “explores in a satirical way what are the right-wing nationalist and religious fundamentalist currents in today's Germany.”
But “gender ideology” critic Gabriele Kuby thinks otherwise. “The entire play is simply a mad incitement to hatred and violence,” she told LifeSiteNews. “We are portrayed as zombies and as dangerous, hateful Nazis. People are told how to shoot zombies in the head. And now there is physical violence — putting cars on fire — against people working to protect the family,” she said.
Kuby said that lawyers are investigating the theater for possible charges involving slander. In the meantime, “Fear” is scheduled to run again in January.
It's ironic to be accused of being Nazis while being the victim of Nazi-like tactics.
Friday, November 20, 2015
|Days||Size in millimetresmm according to percentile|
|LMP||PF||50th||5th||95th||%diff. 50th to 5th||% diff. 50th to 95th||% diff. 95th to 5th|
This is a chart showing the norms for Crown-Rump Length measurements for embryos and first trimester fetuses in millimetres. The source for this information is below.
LMP= Days sinnce Last Menstrual Period. That's how OB-GYN's and other medical professionals calculate the age of a pregnancy.
PF= Post-fertilization. That's how embryologists calculate the age of an embryo. If I wanted to be really exact, some of them use post-ovulatory age, which is slightly different than post-fertilization, but for the purposes of the exercise, it's not a dig deal.
I marked down the ages according to the 50th percentile, the 5th percentile and the 95th percentile, so that you can know what's a small embryo for that age, and what's a large one.
I took the liberty to calculate the difference between the different percentiles to underscore that there can be significant varations in measurements in the early weeks.
To accurately estimate the age of an embryo, you might also want to consult the 23 Carnegie Stages of embryonic development.
Normal Ranges of Embryonic Length, Embryonic
Heart Rate, Gestational Sac Diameter and Yolk Sac
Diameter at 6–10 Weeks
George I. Papaioannou Argyro Syngelaki Leona C.Y. Poon Jackie A. Ross
Kypros H. Nicolaides
Harris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine and Early Pregnancy Unit, King’s College Hospital, London , UK
Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;28:207–219
In light of the episode of Scandal, in which a woman has an abortion to the tune of Silent Night, Matt Walsh rants:
Everyone who tunes into MSNBC knows they're going to be watching a bunch of propaganda merchants desperately shill for the Obama Administration. The real danger is the progressive proselytizing from Hollywood and these "entertainment" outlets like ABC. If your children are brainwashed by anything they see on television, it won't be Anderson Cooper or MSNBC pundits doing the damage. It will be mainstream sitcoms and dramas and awards shows and whatever else our pop culture produces.
But here's the thing: ABC wouldn't survive if so-called "conservatives" and Christians stopped watching. So, seriously, why are we watching?
Justina Van Maren:
The main problem with The Lancetstudy, as Ross Douthat of the New York Times points out, is that it doesn’t compare like to like. The study looks at the Western world, mainly North America and Western Europe, and compares these abortion rates to those of regions such as Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The number of potential confounding variables when comparing rich regions with far poorer regions is staggering. Canada and the United States are hardly analogous to Sub-Saharan Africa (as if that isn’t obvious to anyone and everyone). In order to really discern the effect of restrictive abortion laws in North America, we should compare countries that are part of the developed world.
One of the most overlooked factors in these glibly cited stats is the level of enforcement. How much effort do authorities put into trying to enforce these laws? In many instances, the answer is very little. In fact, I once read that sometimes the authorities don't want to legalize abortion because the present situation serves their purposes, and holding the debate would stir up opposition. So they keep abortion illegal and turn a blind eye to it.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
In compelling detail, Riebling looks not only at the strategies that various anti-Nazi officers and other co-conspirators pursued to kill Hitler, but the kind of government structures that would need to be imposed on shattered Germany if the conspiratorial plots succeeded. Pope Pius XII was a central figure in the planning of these scenarios, as were the Dominicans and Jesuits in his network, precisely because of their ability to act independently of the bishops, some of whom were suspect or timid. In his 1988 book, Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War, Owen Chadwick cited testimony from the British representative to the Holy See, D’Arcy Osborne, who confirmed the Pope’s involvement in the June 20 plot, “Operation Valkyrie.”
Here's my question.
I still feel a pinch of skepticism about this. How come this was not widely known before? If a historian as well-known as Owen Chadwick put out this information, did he not have any Catholic readers to spread this information?
It's not that I really buy the Hitler's Pope narrative, but I've become accustomed to the notion that if a narrative is too good to be true, it probably is.
Now THAT'S more like it.
And just FYI:
And just FYI:
Koch is an orthodox cardinal who has rejected the idea from some German and American bishops that divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive Communion.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Preach it Conrad Black:
The ghastly, unutterably contemptible quavering about ISIS must end: It is an unmitigated evil with almost no support — perhaps 50,000 active warriors in all Islam, and the usual riff-raff of useful idiots scattered about different countries prepared to become human torpedoes against all forms of civilization, starting with Muslim civilization, such as it now is. ISIS must be physically exterminated, let us be clear, in a just and virtuous act of war: Anyone who favors, and becomes an armed agent to carry out, acts of indiscriminate terror, the slaughter of innocents (such as the attractive young couples and decent people at the restaurants and concert hall in Paris on Friday), unless they believably repent, must be exterminated, and this monstrous moral, theological, and political heresy of an ISIS Caliphate must be crushed into nonexistence by the application of whatever level of military force and punitive retribution is required.
What in the hell are we waiting for? Another attack? More dead?
I rarely agree with Neil MacDonald:
Everyone knows airstrikes will not decide this fight. And the U.S.-led campaign to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria and troops in Iraq has been an embarrassment, to put it mildly.
Generally, whenever ISIS or its affiliated extremists have shown up, America's proxies have cut and run, often leaving their U.S.-provided guns and hardware for the enemy to scoop up.
But disengaging and letting the Middle East sort itself out would involve a hideous price for the populations on the ground.
What is your freedom worth for you?
Because if we cut and run, ISIS will only expand, only infiltrate the West even more.
We need to send our armies NOW and finish the job.
The problem with the West is that when it sends its armies to fight, it does so only on condition that the war will be short-lived and cost few lives.
We can't fight like that. This is what caused our problem in the first place.
We should have taken over Iraq, but we left Saddam in place.
Then the US invaded Iraq again (on a flimsy pretext) and left. Without having stabilized the country.
You can't do that. You have to fight the war all the way to the end, eradicating all your enemies, or don't fight it at all.
We should have never gone into Iraq the second time. Saddam would probably be dead by now. His successor probably would have been no better but at least we wouldn't be dealing with ISIS.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
We all suspected the links, but... this underscores the relationship between the CBC and The Liberal Party.
Edited to add, it's old news-- a few days old.
Edited to add, it's old news-- a few days old.
Monday, November 09, 2015
|Clio, Muse of History|
I don't disagree with Jonathon van Maren very often.
It's true that a number of progressive heroes would not make the cut as regards modern standards.
But I think the mistake he makes is in thinking that truth matters to progressives.
Colour me shocked.
Legalize pot! What could go wrong? /sarcasm
Question: The RMHIDTA report released in September, “the legalization of marijuana in Colorado: the impact,” found marijuana use has essentially doubled among adults and youths, 12 to 17, since Colorado legalized the recreational use and sale of the drug. Did this surprise you?
Answer: “If you legalize something and make it readily available, more people are going to use it. And any time you have an increased use of any intoxicant, there is going to be an impact on society. That’s only logical.”
Legalize pot! What could go wrong? /sarcasm
Sunday, November 08, 2015
Monday, November 02, 2015
I couldn't agree more with Brian Lilley:
Only 15% of Conservative supporters said they were writing about politics on social media during the campaign compared to 18% of NDP backers and 19% of Liberals.
Liberals and New Democrats were also more likely to comment on political postings on social media.
But the really big imbalance comes in on sharing stories.
During the campaign, 34% of NDP supporters said they shared political content on social media. 32% of Liberals did the same, but just 24% of Conservatives.