Saturday, January 31, 2009

More about the mother of those octuplets

There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.

Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses. She refused.

(...)

Her fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor but she declined to identify him.

(...)

Angela Suleman told reporters Friday that doctors implanted far fewer than eight embryos, but they multiplied. [!!!!!!!]



This story gets more and more bizarre all the time.

Is Planned Parenthood backing off from FOCA?



Charmaine Yoest at Americans United for Life Action warns that, "Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, and others are saying that they aren’t going to try to pass the 'Freedom of Choice Act' (FOCA). Don’t believe it for a second. If your opponent gives up the frontal attack . . . you better start watching your flank.

We are now seeing the abortion forces waging an incremental battle — working to pass what we have termed 'FOCA-by-Stealth.' They think that if they take FOCA and repackage it and pass it in pieces and under different names . . . that we won’t notice."


source

Pope Benedict XVI: On State and Public Service

Two quotes from Pope Benedict's Caritas Deus Est

On the State:

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.

Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28



On public service:


When we consider the immensity of others' needs, we can, on the one hand, be driven towards an ideology that would aim at doing what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolving every problem. Or we can be tempted to give in to inertia, since it would seem that in any event nothing can be accomplished. At such times, a living relationship with Christ is decisive if we are to keep on the right path, without falling into an arrogant contempt for man, something not only unconstructive but actually destructive, or surrendering to a resignation which would prevent us from being guided by love in the service of others.

Pope John Paul II: On Faith and Certitude

Just came across this quotation in John Paul the Great's book: Go in Peace: A Gift of Enduring Love.

Whether we admit it or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth that confers a certitude no longer open to doubt.

--Pope John Paul II.

But it's all about choice...except when it's not

Fern hill:

Here's my question: WTF is up with a woman who has six children being given fertility drugs?


I guess "her body, her choice" does not apply here.

And they wonder why we call them "pro-abortion"?

UPDATE:

Secondhand Smoke has a really good post:

But when you think about it: How can there even be a question of laws and ramifications in this day and age? The door to realistic norms and binding ethical constraints has not just been unlocked over the last few decades, it has been torn off the hinges. In today's world, doctors are becoming less professionals and more order taking technicians. Want an abortion? Take a number. Want assisted suicide? Take a number. Want to invest $500,000 into your face with cosmetic surgery? Take a number. You want your children genetically tested before deciding whether they are worth having? Take a number. Get pregnant with three IVF embryos and only want one, take a number to "selectively reduce" the two you don't want so you can raise an only child. A single woman, without a job, who already has six kids and wants eight more? Take a number.

A lot of people will be angry about this. Her mother even defended the woman as not being "evil." But I don't see how she or her doctors can be condemned when the watchword of the era is terminal nonjudgmentalism with the only gauge of morality being "choice."

Yes We Can!

I just liked this photoshop:



UPDATE: Snarky criticisms noted. Photoshop improved.

May be further improved.

UPDATE #2: To anyone wondering where their update went: Haloscan is on the fritz, again.

UPDATE #3: It seems that some people have to put the worst spin on everything.

The comment appear and disappear at random.

Indeed. My comments disappear as well.

But whatever.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Study: Early abortion as narrated by young Swedish women.

From an abstract:

Methods: Narrative interviews were conducted with ten 18-20-year-old women 2-6 weeks after a medical or surgical abortion in the sixth to twelfth week of pregnancy. Data were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutic method. Results: The study disclosed a multitude of complex meanings in the young women's lived experiences of induced abortion. Four themes were revealed: having cared for and protected the unimagined pregnancy, taking the life of my child-to-be with pain, being sensitive to the approval of others and imagining the taken away child-to-be. The results are discussed in light of Nussbaum's theory of development ethics. The young women's ability to be responsible for their choices regarding their own welfare and others' well-being in a life cycle perspective was disclosed, despite the pain inherent in the responsibility of taking the life of their own child-to-be.


Pain? What pain?

Abortion is painful? My goodness. The next thing they'll be saying is that abortion hurts women.

In the development of the prevention of unintended pregnancies and the sexual education of young people in Sweden existential dimensions of undergoing an abortion should be given attention.


Existential dimensions?

Abortion should be no more existential than dental work.

So they say.

Combox on the fritz again

Hello Readers

It sems that Haloscan is having difficulties again, as comments are not being published. They're in the database, as I see them on the moderator's website.

They're just not showing up.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

How many babies can fit inside one woman?

The short answer:

How do so many babies fit in one woman? The limit isn't so much the number of babies as their volume and weight. In general, once the total weight of the babies inside reaches about 12 pounds, the uterus goes into labor. The greater the number of fetuses, the earlier the labor will occur. (The rough formula for due dates is to start at 40 weeks of gestation for one baby and subtract three weeks for each additional child: 37 for twins, 34 for triplets, etc. It's remarkable, then, that eight fetuses were able to gestate for 30 weeks, as in the California case.) Labor can also occur if a sac ruptures and introduces bacteria into the uterus or if one of the fetuses isn't growing correctly and signals the uterus to induce labor.

How the faceless and amoral world of cyberspace has created a deeply disturbing... generation SEX

Olivia Lichenstein mourns the loss of boundaries among teenage girls.

So how much are the parents to blame? Those of us who grew up in the Sixties and Seventies will do almost anything to appear ‘cool’ to our children; we certainly don’t wish to come across as some sort of Mary Whitehouse scandalised by today’s youth.

Nor do we wish to appear as joyless, men-hating feminists, although many of us remember that we fought hard for the right to do as men have always done.

One can’t help but wonder what happened to feminism and its lessons. On the one hand, girls drink like men; on the other they dress in a manner that invites sexual objectification. Do these young girls even know what feminism is


Feminism and its lessons?

It pushed sexual libertinism and mocked people who denounced promiscuity and now we wonder why we're in a mess?

According to a sample group of 17-year-olds I spoke to, there is an enormous double standard between the sexes. Boys treat sex as being a sign of ‘laddishness’ and masculinity, they say; promiscuous behaviour on their part is an achievement.

Girls, on the other hand, are caught between a rock and a hard place.

‘Boys demand that they go further before they are ready; if they do, they’ll quickly be labelled as sluts, and gain a reputation as an easy target, so that drunk boys will seek them expecting that they’ll be easy to get off with,’ says one.

‘If they don’t, they’ll be labelled as frigid and become instantaneously unattractive; most boys won’t bother investing time and energy flirting with a girl if they think there is little prospect of pulling.’


What rock and a hard place?

Why the f*ck are girls looking to hook up with these guys in the first place?

There is only one word for a guy who wants a girl to slut around: a**hole.

Why would you want to date an a**hole?

Maybe because you think you're so cheap to begin with?

Feminists keep denouncing the double standard. But the way they wish to rectify the situation is to lower the standard for girls instead of raising the standard for men.

Here's an idea: don't like the double standard? Just don't take that crap.

I never had to worry about the double standard in high school. It did not apply to me. I never worried about a**holes who thought I was unattractive for that reason (if they ever did-- I never thought about it) because such people were unattractive to me.

Pretty simple.

Somebody teach the girls the truth: you are better than that! Do not sell yourself cheap.

People should be drilling these rules into girls' heads.

Instead, we just accept that teenagers will have sex. Boys will be boys. Girls will be girls.

And we wonder why we're in this mess. We make like teenagers can deal with these things.

‘Parents should take back some of the control they’ve ceded. We don’t say “no” enough, so vulnerable girls don’t have enough experience of saying “no” themselves


Exactly. What the hell are teens doing drinking alcohol?

And yes, I know that alcohol is rampant. That still doesn't make it okay. Parents know about the drinking. Many have just resigned themselves to the fact and some even buy the alcohol for their kids.

Do they not realize their kids will do things they will regret-- maybe for the rest of their lives-- if they are drunk and unsupervised?

Does no one stop and think of these things?

This is not to say that we should be condemning teenagers for being sexual and proposing that they take chastity vows and attend purity balls as is fashionable in parts of the U.S.


Well, how's that sexual thing workin' for them?

Seriously, why would you let your kid engage in behaviour the consequences they are unable to deal with?

We keep thinking that teenagers are able to predict consequences and deal with them. They're not. That's what adults are capable of (some of them). That's why teenagers not adults yet.

The columnist seems to be worried about how promiscuity is so public now.

Why would it be more okay if it were in private, like when I was in high school?

It was still humiliating. It was still hurtful and destroyed self-esteem. Sure, maybe it wouldn't ruin your future career. But why shouldn't this stuff be avoided?

We lie to ourselves a lot. We're too afraid of being old and stodgy.

Old and stodgy gets your through adolescence in tact. The old and stodgy kids didn't get STD's and they didn't end up pregnant.

And another thing:

I talked a lot about girls. But what about raising men to be gentlemen--

to not want to take advantage of a girl in the first place?

Girls are secretly dying for this. I know. They might seem liberated. Most girls aren't.

Mother of octuplets now has 14 kids

The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week already has six young children and never expected that the fertility treatment she received would result in eight more babies, her mother said Thursday.

The woman, who has not been publicly identified, had embryos implanted last year, and "they all happened to take," Angela Suleman said, leading to the eight births Monday. "I looked at those babies. They are so tiny and so beautiful."

(...)

According to her account, when her daughter discovered that she was expecting multiple babies, doctors gave her the option of selectively reducing the number of embryos, but she declined.

"What do you suggest she should have done? She refused to have them killed," Suleman said as the sound of children could be heard in the background. "That is a very painful thing."


source

Welcome CNN website readers.

I posted this to underscore the pro-life theme of the story.

Notwithstanding the obvious hardship, the mother refused to kill her babies.

Please visit the rest of my blog.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

How Pro-Choicers Argue

An oldie but a goodie:

Subjective Claims vs. Objective Claims

When pro-choicers say that "It is just your opinion that human life begins at conception" they are confusing subjective claims with objective claims. Objective claims are claims that can be proved or disproved using objective evidence. For example, claiming that President George Bush weighs 175 pounds is an objective claim. We can put the President on a scale and if he weighs 175 pounds then the claim is correct but if weighs 178 pounds then the claim is wrong.

Subjective claims are claims where one person or a group of people express their opinions about something that is a personal preference. For example, claiming that President Bush is an attractive man is a preference claim. Some people may find the President to be attractive while others may not but either claim is a subjective claim because they cannot be proven using objective evidence. Another example of this is if I stated, "Halle Berry is more attractive than Charlize Theron." This statement can't be proven with evidence. It's personal preference.

Prolifers claim that abortion kills an innocent human being. This is an objective claim. Pro-choicers who argue this way ("That's just your opinion") are treating your claim like it's a subjective claim, saying that the matter of whether something is a living human being is a matter of opinion not fact.

However, this is not a prolife opinion or feeling. Prolifers aren't saying "Justin Timberlake is cuter than Brad Pitt." Or that "McDonald's fries are better than fries from Burger King." Whether or not abortion kills an innocent human being is a matter of being right and wrong, true or not true, not a matter of opinion.

Paper ripping example

If John Doe is ripping a piece of paper up and then Jane Roe sees John ripping the paper and accuses John of killing an innocent human being, how will John argue with Jane? Will he tell Jane that it is just "her opinion" that ripping paper kills an innocent human being. No, of course not. He will probably look at the piece of paper and say, "What are you talking about? This is a piece of paper, not a human being." He would probably then commence to prove to Jane that a piece of paper is not a human being by inspecting another piece of paper, looking for signs of life such as growth, cellular division, energy use, etc. He could also try to extract DNA from the paper to see what kind of being it is or what kind of being it used to be by looking at its chromosomes. John could also try to figure out if the parents of the paper were human beings. The evidence would clearly show that the piece of paper was not a human being and Jane would be wrong.

Jane made an objective claim about the paper being a human being. She was either right or wrong. Prolifers are making an objective claim about the unborn being human beings. They are either right or wrong. Pro-choicers often use moral relativism as a crutch because they can't use science to prove that the unborn aren't human beings On the other hand, in my example John had no need to use moral relativism because he could easily prove that a piece of paper isn't a human being.

Either abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being or it does not. Just because someone refuses to accept the scientific reality that life begins at conception doesn't mean that abortion can be wrong for someone else but is okay for them.

An Eye for and Eye-- What does it mean?

One of my pet peeves is misinterpreted bible verses.

This is a big one.

I am posting this from a Jewish source, but it's still valid for the Catholic faith.

CHP: Conservative Budget is "Disappointing"

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Jan. 28, 2009) - Christian Heritage Party Leader, Jim Hnatiuk, describes the Conservative Budget as "disappointing".

Hnatiuk, speaking from Halifax, applauds the fact that the Conservatives have heard the message that Canadians expect them to work together with the opposition parties.

Hnatiuk also applauded the use of the 'sunset clause' on programs, "which has been a staple of our CHP policy for 20 years" and approved of Ignatieff's announcement to support the budget, providing the government be held accountable via periodic reports on its implementation.

While an economic stimulus will certainly provide some relief in this economic downturn, it is always questionable whether it will pull Canada out of this current recession.

Deficit spending-anything that increases the National Debt-is stealing from future generations; it is theft! "Our government would have solved the liquidity crisis by creating the needed money, interest free, through the Bank of Canada, instead of borrowing it from the chartered banks. We wouldn't have had to steal the "stimulus" money from our children and their children," Hnatiuk said.

Canada has faced similar challenges before and successfully overcome them without borrowing money. In 1945, with the prospect of two million soldiers returning from overseas, the Liberal government of MacKenzie King was concerned about the economic stability of our nation. Unlike yesterday's budget, King's government made a bold move. He instructed the Bank of Canada to create money to make loans that were virtually interest-free to provinces, municipalities and other local public authorities, for infrastructure projects. This bold move kicked off an unprecedented economic boom.

Hnatiuk said, "The CHP would have used this proven and successful plan... because it works! It doesn't cause a deficit and thus does not increase our national debt.

"We're disappointed but we will continue to promote successful policies in Canada."


source

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Bishop Richard Williamson's Reaction to the Deed

Bishop Richard Williamson says that the lifting of the excommunications was a pre-requisite for the SSPX to enter into negotiations with the Church.

I find SSPX-types to be exasperatingly naive in their understanding of the Catholic faith.

And that's beside the anti-semitic and other "cultural" stuff.

When I ran a Catholic message board, among the people I was the least excited to talk to were Traditionalist Catholics. They were often half-knowledgeable. They cling to tradition without a really good understanding of it.

And how do you defend the Catholic Magisterium while defying it. That always struck me as ironic.

Vicki Saporta on abortion in Canada

It is critical to the lives and health of Canadian women that abortion is safe, legal and accessible.



And if babies have to die? Oh well. Feminist rights always trumps everyone else's.

VIDEO: Pope Benedict Condemns the Holocaust

In the wake of lifting of the excomunication on Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson, the Vatican has its YouTube to good use and posted a video of Pope Benedict condemning the Holocaust, to remind those in and outside the Church of the horror of the Shoah.

Unfortunately, it won't allow embed. Which strikes me as weird.

In any case. Here's the link.

And many people share the sentiments of Elan Steinburg:

The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants said the Vatican's attempts to reject Williamson's views were necessary but insufficient. The group's vice president, Elan Steinberg, urged the Vatican to further address what he called its "moral failure" in rehabilitating Williamson.

"At a minimum, the Vatican should now demand that Williamson repudiate his heinous views," Steinberg said.


People think the Pope can tell anyone what to believe on any subject.

It doesn't work that way.

On issues that do not explicitly or implicitly relate to Divine Revelation, Catholics are not bound to any one opinion.

You can believe global warming is a problem. Or not.

You can believe in small government. Or big government.

You can believe in taxpayer-funded health care. Or not.

And so forth.

The pope doesn't have any authority to change Williamson's opinion on history.

The SSPX has already said it has prohibited him from speaking on these matters.

But I don't think the media or the critics really want to understand the situation. What's a little truth when you can sling mud at the opposition.

VIDEO: Fr. Barron on the Catholic "Commentariat"

Just a lot of relevant views regarding what the new generation Catholic commentators must say and do.



H/T: Creative Minority Report

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Holocaust-Denying Bishop Silenced

From the National Catholic Register:

Statement of His Excellency Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X

We have become aware of an interview released by Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Fraternity of St. Pius X, to Swedish television. In this interview, he expressed himself on historical questions, and in particular on the question of the genocide against the Jews carried out by the Nazis.

It’s clear that a Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on questions that regard faith and morals. Our Fraternity does not claim any authority on other matters. Its mission is the propagation and restoration of authentic Catholic doctrine, expressed in the dogmas of the faith. It’s for this reason that we are known, accepted and respected in the entire world.

It’s with great sadness that we recognize the extent to which the violation of this mandate has done damage to our mission. The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.

We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission.

This is something we cannot accept, and we declare that we will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to administer the sacraments of grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Menzingen, January 27, 2009


H/T: Creative Minority Report

Human Rights Commission 'Dismisses' hate charges against CHP Canada!

Jim Hnatiuk - Leader of the Christian Heritage Party
CHP NEWS RELEASE
Jan 27, 2009
For immediate release


Human Rights Commission 'Dismisses' hate charges against CHP Canada!

OTTAWA, Jan. 27, 2009 - The Christian Heritage Party of Canada and the CHP's former leader have been notified by the Canadian Human Rights Commission that allegations of 'hate' by an Edmonton man against the Party, one of its Electoral District Associations and former leader Ron Gray have been dismissed.

The CHRC dismissed the three complaints because "the content and context of the material which forms the basis of the complaint is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation," says the letter from Lucie Veillette, secretary of the Commission, to Ron Gray. "Accordingly, the file on this matter is now closed."

Gray was critical of the CHRC's procedures, and the effect its proceedings can have of "chilling" public discussion of important policy issues.

"I wrote to the CHRC about these complaints Feb. 19, 2007--almost two years ago--and have not yet had a reply to that letter," Gray said. "The proceedings have cost about $50,000. Fortunately, there were people across Canada who believed in free speech enough to cover those costs with voluntary donations.

"I want to thank the hundreds of people who helped to defend free speech rights in Canada by contributing to our legal defense fund.

"But the CHRC's method of operation is both slipshod and unjust. The complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint; as Ezra Levant has said, 'The process is the punishment'--whether the respondent is innocent or guilty.

"The idea of protecting people and groups from 'hate speech' that incites to violence is still sound," Gray said. "But such incitement is already a criminal offence, and the defense against it belongs in criminal court, where the normal rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence apply. In a real court, these ridiculous charges would never have been admitted."

The new CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk maintains that the CHP is the only federal political party in Canada that has and will continue to defend "traditional marriage" between one man and one woman.

The new CHP Leader, Jim Hnatiuk, re-affirms the commitment of the CHP to fight for the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. "We are the only political party which is taking seriously the threat to our freedom of speech posed by this repressive piece of legislation."

This follows on the heals of last summer's fight for freedom of the press, in which Human Rights Commissions were forced to back down from their investigations of Ezra Levant, Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn.

These cases against the CHP and Ron Gray were a test of the political metal of our Party. Would we kowtow to having our freedom of political opinion taken away? "We did not," Hnatiuk states, "and we will not!"

Hnatiuk also affirms his Party's will to fight against the repression of freedom of speech such as suffered by Rev. Stephen Boissoin and Dr. Chris Kempling.

"We're in this for the long haul; for the sake of all Canadians," Hnatiuk confirms.


-30-


Contact:

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk, 1-888-868-3247 or leader@chp.ca

About the hospital where those octuplets were born...

The birth of the octuplets come as
Meriter Hospital will decide whether it will approve a plan to perform late-term abortions at Madison Surgery Center. That decision is set to be made on Wednesday.


So babies like Kyra, Kimberley and James will be killed by having potassium chloride jabbed in their hearts.

The abortion lobby applauds this increased access to abortion.

It's all about women's empowerment after all.

You can't be empowered unless you have the right to kill an innocent, defenseless baby.

And if you say otherwise, you're a misogynist. Not a defender of babies. A misogynist.




Feminist empowerment.

93-year-old freezes to death at home after utility firm limits power use

What the heck was this company thinking???

This burns me. I worked for the gas company for a short while. They don't shut off the power until spring time if your account is in arrears. It seems to me if his account was that badly off, and he's obviously and elderly man on a limited income, the company should have made an arrangement with him. The gas company that I worked for had a program for people living in poverty.

The guy might not have had a functioning phone if his electricity was cut. How was he supposed to call 911?

And what was his level of functioning? At 93, he might not have been too sharp.

Someone was not on the ball.

I'm all for making a profit, and I'm all for governmental non-regulation, but the company should have stepped back and asked itself what it could have done. Maybe it was an accident that the device didn't work, but it would have just happened 10 days later in any case.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Babies who could've been killed, but weren't

Miracle Babies is an Australian blog that seeks to document stories about premature babies.

Babies that could have been killed by abortion.

But weren't.

Like baby Kyra:



She was born at 26 weeks.

Or James White:



He was born at 29 weeks.

Or Little Kimberley, reputed to be the lightest baby ever to survive, at 10 oz:




In some places, you're not considered "viable" until you weigh 500 grams. That's 17.6 ounces.

Tell yourself that Joyce Arthur, the Canadian abortion lobby and their feminist enablers think that piercing these little babies' hearts with an injection of potassium chloride should be legal. It's all about the women, now. A fetus? That's just "a clump of cells". These were not people in the womb. Making their interests just as important as the woman makes you a misogynist. Remember that.

Pro-Life Celebrities Join Bloggers to Discuss Internet Strategy, How to Sway Mainstream Media

From Lifesite:

Blogger Shaun Kenney said that, at a time when the mainstream media refuses to cover pro-life news, blogging "enables the community to start being the leaders themselves." "The change isn't going to come from some new organization in Washington,[RE: Toronto]" said Kenney; rather, change is going to come from "those who are able to reach out ... through alternative means - namely, new media. It's free, and it's effective."


Exactly!

Every year, people complain that the CBC did not cover this or that pro-life event/issue.

If the CBC won't cover your event, this is what you do.

Invest $600 in a video camera.

Film it yourself.

Edit it on your computer.

Upload it to Youtube.

Don't want to pay $600? Don't know how and won't learn? Just too tired to do it?

Then you don't deserve it.

Oh I know, there are 90-year-old grannies who can never be expected to do this, but the pro-life movement does not consist entirely of 90-year-old grannies.

If you save two bucks a day for a year, you will have enough for a nice video camera. I paid no interest on mine using a spanking new Zellers credit card. It cost about 42$ a month. It has been totally worth it. Every time there is a happening in Ottawa, and I can make it, I take my video camera with me.

The internet is full of free software. Surely there is at least one decent video editing freeware application. Mine came with my Windows XP.

We have to learn to become a little more self-reliant when it comes to doing things. We think we're in the right, so we expect others to do our bidding.

It doesn't quite work that way.

That's the old way of doing it. The old way does not work.

Let's create our own internal buzz. Noise attracts attention.

Chattel slavery, Fetal slavery

Says Claude:

We are like the civil rights marchers demonstrating the person hood and life of the unborn. We are modern day abolitionists, who like our predecessors, demonstrated and facilitated the freedom of the black slaves in this country. Dred Scott vs Sanford of 1857 and Roe vs Wade of 1973 share two issues in common. They are both about the disposability of life and the money making institution and industry they really are. There is money to be gained in the chattel slave and the fetal slave.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

15 Truths About Abortion

By John Piper

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb (except in the case of abortion).

2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.

3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.

4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.

5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.

6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.

7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.

8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.

9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.

10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.

11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.

12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.

13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.

14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.

15.Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.


H/T: Slice of Laodicea

Do the Children of Rape Deserve Death?



Says Christina:

Yet even prolifers, even Christian prolifers, balk at defending the life of the child conceived through rape.

Is this child any less deserving of protection?


I would suggest that these pro-lifers are more interested in stopping an evil than promoting the equality of all human beings.

What other human beings are denied their right to life for someone else's action.

When we talk about the pro-life debate as the suppression of an immoral action, it makes more sense to have exceptions. We're relativistic about behaviour all the time.

But when we talk about the pro-life debate as acknowledging the equality of all human beings, it makes much less sense.

Pro-Lifers in Their Own Words #6: Rev. Ed Hird

Reverend Ed Hird is the Rector of St. Simon's Anglican Church in North Vancouver.

In 2005, His parish was essentially forced out of their former property after the New Westminster Synod voted to bless same-sex unions, and they would not go along with that decision. The community decided to join the Anglican Coalition of Canada, which seeks to be faithful to traditional values.

He is the author of The Battle for the Soul of Canada, and a Past President of Alpha Canada, which seeks to reach unevangelized adults. His blog says that he is presently writing his third book.

Here is his story:


Before I became a Christian, I was probably mildly pro-abortion in the sense of being persuaded by the life and health of the mother argument. I had no idea that the term 'health' was so broad that one could drive a mac truck through it.

My pro-life views developed gradually after my conversion at age 17 during the Jesus movement. I did not think a lot about the abortion issue, until meeting Christian leaders like Pastors Bob Birch and Bernice Gerard who gave presentations on the issue. I began to read books on the issue, and was shocked by the callousness of our culture.

Listening to and reading Dr. James Dobson also got me thinking. Books that shaped my thinking were the Rev John Powell's 'The Silent Holocaust', Rites of Life by Landrum Shettles MD and David Rorvik, and 'Abortion's Second Victim' by Pam Koerbel. My involvement in Prayer Ministry/Counselling over the years showed me how many people, including Christians, secretly suffer with the after-effects of abortions.

I began to attend pro-life marches and rallies. Lifeline was a significant witness for a period of years. In more recent years, I have been impressed by the role of the internet in raising awareness of life issues. Faytene Kryskow of MyCanada has been a real leader in that area. Recently I have been impacted by the testimony of Gianna Jenssen, an abortion survivor, and have passed on her online story to many others by e-mail. The work of the crisis pregnancy centres has been very significant and sacrificial. Adding guilt to women who have been through abortions rarely helps them work through the deep trauma that they have experienced. There is healing and forgiveness to be found in Jesus' shed blood.

I see the yearly destruction of over 100,000 Canadians through abortion to be a tragedy. Canada at this point has largely hardened its heart and does not want to even think about this issue. My hope is that Canadians will eventually see that there is a better way to solve our societal crises than the elimination of our youngest Canadians. Science and time is on the side of the likelihood that Canadians will eventually recognize the personhood of the unborn child, and move towards legally protecting our most vulnerable citizens. When men start standing up for the women in their lives, and when women begin standing up for the rights of vulnerable children, then Canada will turn the corner and become a truly compassionate nation.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Abortion: How did we get here? On public morality

The answers, of course, are complex. Bill Gairdner has one piece of the puzzle:

Until about the middle of the 19th century, all philosophers, and all religious and political leaders in the Western world accepted as obvious the idea that we live – and ought to live – under a common moral bubble, so to speak. Which is to say that moral standards were considered public by their very nature, rather than private. The mere idea that morality should be something sourced in a personal point of view aimed at serving the purposes of solitary individuals or, even more fickle, something constructed to suit the occasion, had always been considered absurd, if not a sign of moral sickness.

But with the advance of egalitarian democracy came an increasingly shrill demand for individual rights divorced from duties, and with this a weakening of shared moral consensus and an entirely new idea: that each human being lives under his or her own private moral bubble. The most famous articulation of this historically bizarre alteration in the public conception of morality was by J.S. Mill in his little booklet On Liberty in 1859. Within certain confusing limits he basically argued that morality is a private matter and the only case for concern is when we directly harm someone else by our conduct. This is today called Mill’s “harm principle” and it has rapidly become the most common ideal of what it means to live a free and moral life. Indeed, Canada’s own Supreme Court, in R. vs. Labaye (2005), in which a citizen complained that it was indecent and against community standards to allow a swingers’ sex club in a residential neighbourhood, ruled in favour of the club, and in doing so wrote that “The philosophical underpinnings of the ... harm-based approach are found in the liberal theories of J. S. Mill. This philosopher argued that the only purpose for which state power can be rightfully exercised over a member the community is to prevent harm to others.”

And so it has come to pass by edict of our highest court that there is no longer a common moral bubble; that we have no duty to be concerned for others, nor for the greater good, nor for society as something comprised of real relationships that is far more than the sum of its individual parts.

VIDEO: The 2009 Pelosimobile (Humour)

I thought this was pretty good. Put a big smile on my face:



H/T Cruel But Fair

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama in favour of restricting late-term abortion?

I just happened upon Canadian Soapbox, a left-wing blog, which addressed the issue of Obama and late-term abortion.

He quotes a passage in Relevant Magazine in which Obama asserts that he is in favour of the States restricting late-term abortion:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions".


But wouldn't FOCA invalidate all that? Why would he override the State bans on late-term abortion if he believes they are legitamite?

And what about partial birth abortion? Would he legalize that procedure?

Lots of questions...

To Kill a Negro They Do Not Deem Murder

I am often criticized for comparing the abortion issue to the slavery issue, and feminism to white supremacy.

I know why I am crticized for it.

Because the critics do not acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child, in spite of the scientific proof.

The attitudes of feminists and their enablers truly are reminiscent of white supremacists of old.

Consider the words of Col. Samuel Thomas about white attitudes towards blacks. He was a Freedmen's Bureau official, who worked in the South after the Civil War.

Wherever I go- - the street, the shop, the house, or the steamboat- - I hear the people talk in such a way as to indicate that they are yet unable to conceive of the Negro as possessing any rights at all. Men who are honorable in their dealings with their white neighbors will cheat a Negro without feeling a single twinge of their honor. To kill a Negro they do not deem murder; to debauch a Negro woman they do not think fornication; to take the property away from a Negro they do not consider robbery. The people boast that when they get freedmen affairs in their own hands, to use their own classic expression, "the niggers will catch hell."

The reason of all this is simple and manifest. The whites esteem the blacks their property by natural right, and however much they may admit that the individual relations of masters and slaves have been destroyed by the war and the President's emancipation proclamation, they still have an ingrained feeling that the blacks at large belong to the whites at large, and whenever opportunity serves they treat the colored people just as their profit, caprice or passion may dictate.


Does this not remind you of the contemporary towards the unborn? Some assert that fetuses are their property. Embryos are frozen and destroyed, their bodies harvested for medical research, and sometimes even cosmetics.

Of course there are difference. The unborn can't steal or commit any other wrong.

But that lack of ability is only an excuse to not consider the truth.

Blacks are human beings who were considered non-human, and the property of whites.

The unborn are human beings who are considered non-human, and the property of women.

In the South: "to kill a Negro they do not deem murder."

In the Western World: "to kill a fetus they do not deem murder."

I know that some will say that there is a difference-- the unborn live inside the woman's body.

But since when are human rights conditional?

When do human rights depend on anything else other than being human?

True equality means treating ALL human beings equally-- that they all have human rights.

It depends on nothing else.

Man Intentionally Drives SUV into St. Paul Planned Parenthood

ST. PAUL, Minn, January 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Yesterday morning a man suffering from mental illness intentionally drove his family's SUV into the front doors of a St. Paul's Planned Parenthood abortuary. Yesterday marked the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.

Matthew Derosia of Cottage Grove has been named as the driver of the SUV and has been arrested and placed in Ramsey County jail on suspicion of aggravated assault.

The vehicle hit the only Planned Parenthood abortion center in the state at about 7:30 yesterday morning, reports the Associated Press. There was minor damage done to the brickwork and the front door, and the several employees in the center were not harmed.

Planned Parenthood spokesperson Kathi Di Nicola arrived when Derosia was exiting his SUV and said he was very "agitated" and was holding a crucifix, saying, "Shut down this Auschwitz."

Di Nicola said, "Nothing violent like this has happened in recent memory here." Police spokesman Peter Panos said they are accustomed to demonstrations on the anniversary of Roe, "but someone doing actual damage is very, very rare."

Brian Gibson of Pro-Life Ministries, who regularly protests in front of the facility, condemned Derosia's actions: "We're out here trying to protect the unborn from being harmed and women from being harmed, but also we don't want to see harm to anyone - including those who work at Planned Parenthood."

According to Derosia's mother, her son had been suffering from a severe mental illness resulting in him experiencing loud voices in his head.

"I'm not saying what he did was right at all. It was a terrible thing to do. But Matt talks to God, he listens to God, and he thinks God wanted him to do this," said Georjean Derosia, whose son has been committed 12 times since 2004 to several mental illness facilities.

She said Derosia's passion for saving the unborn started while working as a housekeeper in a newborn intensive care unit.

"He saw all these little babies that made it and he heard all these horror stories about the babies that made it in the trash can make noise. It made him sick," said Georjean. "He worries about these babies that get aborted and he obsesses on it."

Georjean said the last thing her son told her the night before the incident was, "You know Mom, bad things happen, when good men do nothing."

Desrosia is likely to be formally charged today.

The comments box is experiencing difficulties

I am receiving comments, but they are not publishing.

I don't know if they will be published in the future.

UPDATE: It's still hit and miss with the combox.

But *I* do get your comments. So if you comment it's not all in vain.

I think they're not going to publish all the unpublished comments.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

VIDEO: Barack Obama on Capital Punishment

Will he end capital punishment?



Will he restrict it?

It doesn't sound like it.

I oppose the death penalty. I do not think that we should kill people if we do not need to. We can sufficiently protect society without recourse to killing.

VIDEO: [SNN] Pro-Life Obama Inaugural Stings Abortion Industry (Humour)



From ScrappleFace.

Has the Pro-Life Movement Failed? Not By a Long Shot, Ask an Abortion Doctor

By Austin and Cathy Ruse
January 22, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: Austin Ruse is president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute and Cathy Ruse is the senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council. This article originally appeared on The Westchester Institute for Ethics & The Human Person's website.


Imagine yourself a typical abortion doctor, working anywhere in the country. You're a late middle-aged man who never gets to know your patients and doesn't care to. In the beginning you saw yourself as a hero in the fight for women's rights, but now years later as you travel a circuit of clinics, your unknown patients lying prone on table after table, the luster of your work has faded.

Every day you walk through a phalanx of protesters praying for you to stop your work and trying to persuade your patients to walk away. A few doors away or across the street sits a pregnancy help center that has a new sonogram machine which is opening a door to your secret world and turning women against you.

And now there is a new threat, that among the young women in the waiting rooms are undercover pro-lifers with hidden microphones recording clinic staffers saying things that will be aired later on the O'Reilly Factor.

Your landlord doesn't want you as a tenant. Your state legislature passes new laws every year that hurt your business. Your home phone is unlisted and your medical colleagues shun you.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. On the day the Supreme Court handed down the decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the New York Times and the Court itself said the abortion issued had been settled. Of course, nothing in our public life is as unsettled as the abortion issue.

Every year tens of thousands of Americans march in protest on the anniversary of Roe. The Catholic scholar Michael Novak has said that more people have marched in this march for this cause than any other in American history.

Roe established by judicial fiat a national rule of virtually unlimited legal abortion, and the fight against this monolith is not unlike an insurgency against an authoritarian regime:

Roe brooks no dissent and admits no compromise; it will not be moved from power; there is little opponents can do to topple the regime. Yet the rule of insurgencies is that if they do not wither away they will eventually win. The insurgency of the pro-life movement has done much more than stay alive. It has thrived. [TAKE NOTE CANADIAN PRO-LIFERS!]

The result of this iron rule of Roe is that a thousand pro-life flowers have bloomed. It seems pro-life initiatives spring up almost spontaneously at kitchen tables and dorm rooms all across the country. A woman who suffered from abortion decided to tell her story in public and a movement was born and now thousands more speak out. A young man got an idea about prayer and fasting and cooked up 40 Days for Life, a movement that is sweeping the country. Pro-life messages are emerging in the least likely of places, like popular radio and even Hollywood. And yes, hearts and minds are changing.

The result of this is that in poll after poll Americans say they want significantly more limitations on abortion than the Roe regime allows.

Notably, that opinion is shared by women. In an extensive survey of women conducted by the Center for Gender Equality, a group run by former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton, a majority of women stated that abortion should either never be permitted or should be permitted only for cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is endangered. When asked to rank 12 issues in order of importance for the women's movement, the women ranked "Keeping abortion legal" next to last, less important than any other goal but "More girls in sports."

Roe was never based on law, but on the opinion of elite policy makers including those on the Supreme Court. The broadness and deepness of the pro-life movement is changing all that and Roe will eventually be reheard and will be overturned. Both sides know that.

Go listen to an abortion proponent speak. They are beleaguered. They are surrounded. They are defeated. The pro-life movement is coming at them from every direction.

Is the pro-life movement defeated? Not by the longest of shots.

Follow-Up: Christian Heritage Party leader reacts to the criticism of his last communique re: Barack Obama

In response to the criticism generated by this communique (see comments)CHP leader Jim Hnatiuk responded with a new message (on their Facebook group):

Jim Hnatiuk - Leader of the Christian Heritage Party

Communiqué Vol 16, No 02 Jan 21, 2009

The rest of the story...

The various reactions to yesterday's Communiqué have shown how, even the most sincere of people can differ in their perception of what is being communicated. Some agreed and some were opposed.

I think it's time for-as Paul Harvey says-"the rest of the story."

In my Communiqué of yesterday, my focus was towards the great leap forward in human rights that, with the history of racism in the United States, they have elected a black president. I see this as a positive step forward in the eradication of racism. Racism is something which the CHP also opposes.

I knew of Mr. Obama's views on abortion and I am vehemently opposed to them. I have given lectures to youth groups against partial birth abortions. I have shown adult groups videos to educate them on the evils of abortion. I have handed out pro-life material. I have held pro-life banners high, protesting in the street, while pro-abortion activists screamed in my face. I agree that ABORTION is the greatest human rights issue of all times.

One of the things the reaction to the first Communiqué showed is that people perceive things differently. Many people thought I was applauding President Obama. I was not! I was applauding the fact that America has put behind it generations of racial bias.

With the Communiqué, I was leveraging the North American fixation on the inauguration, linking it back to heroic Christian activists of history, and connecting the "freedom" theme with the CHRC atrocities.

At the CHP's leadership convention in London last November--held just after the American election--former CHP leader, Ron Gray, reminded delegates that Mr. Obama could not have been elected unless God allowed it; and he said now that Barack Obama is President, we have a responsibility to pray that God will give him wisdom.

I am aware of the many disturbing issues that President Obama brings to the White House. Even this morning's news includes reports that high on the new President's agenda is "hate crimes" legislation that would protect homosexuality from criticism or free and open debate.

So it's true that Americans have elected a man whose political associations and record are very worrisome; but in doing so, they have (we hope) written 'finis' to a shameful chapter of American history.

In any case, our trust and our hope is not in any man, but in the One who made the heavens and the earth.

I trust that you are reassured that I am not, nor would I, endorse President Obama's position on moral issues.

VIDEO: You just never know with abortion

I wish I had a catchy title. Just watch it.



H/T: Stacy Mott

Atheist prank gone bad

One evening when I was in college some friends and I were sitting around in my dorm room, getting ready to head out to go to a party, when the phone rang. Caller ID showed that it was yet another telemarketer. Our number had been inundated with sales calls, and I was getting sick of it. We had some time to kill before we needed to leave, so I decided to have some fun with the telemarketer for my friends' amusement.

I motioned for everyone to get quiet, clicked the speakerphone button, and answered the call. Immediately a middle-aged-sounding man began his pitch, announcing that he was with a local home services company and asking me leading questions about my carpet cleaning needs.

Doing a horrible imitation of an east Texas accent, I interrupted him to say, "I don't believe in cleaning carpets."


Read the rest.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Graffiti about Obama in Washington D.C.

Just click on it.

Some Messiah. :)

UPDATE: I'm getting quite a few links. I should give credit where it's due. Winston tweeted it first. Take a look at his blog.

The Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada on The Inauguration of Barack Obama

Jim Hnatiuk - Leader of the Christian Heritage Party
Communiqué Vol 16, No 02 Jan 20, 2009

Presidential Inauguration

Today's inauguration of President Barack Obama is a monumental step for all humanity. This historic event will surely have a major positive influence--not only in North America, but for the whole world; it is not only a milestone for relationships between Whites and people of African ancestry; it sets an example that affirms the value and dignity--and right to freedom--of all people.

It affirms that there is really only one race: the human race.

The CHP applauds the United States for the leadership, the enormous efforts, the successes and the sacrifices it has demonstrated to the world since the historic Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln who initiated the journey towards true freedom in America. It is worth noting that it was President Lincoln's faith in Biblical principles that was the foundation for that historic declaration. It is also worth noting that it was preceded by two other important anti-slavery declarations, both by Christian politicians: William Wilberforce in England three decades earlier, and John Graves Simcoe in Upper Canada seven decades earlier.

In his inaugural speech the new President declared, "all are equal and all are free..." and he told the American people that there is still much work to be done.

We in Canada must also be reminded that even after freedoms have been won, we must be forever vigilant--and, if necessary, willing to lay down everything in the battle to maintain them. Here in Canada, we still see our freedom of speech threatened by the actions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Other freedoms--even the right to life itself--are continually under threat; and with your continuing help, we pledge to take up the new American President's challenge:

"Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested... we did not turn back, nor did we falter; that with eyes fixed on the horizon, and with God's grace upon us, we carried forth the great gift of freedom, and delivered it safely to future generations."

Why Angus Reid Online polls may be more accurate

Angus Reid has an online polling system that has been very successful in predicting the outcome of Canadian elections.

Angus Reid's monthly Newsflash to panel members may provide some insight as to why it has a better reading of the pulse of the voters:

If a federal election takes place in the next three months, 90% of you are either certain or very likely to cast your ballot.


In other words, Angus Reid's sample is probably more politically engaged than average, and that makes sense. People who really care about current events go online to get their news.

Confronting the horror of abortion from all sides

The Orange County Register featured Richard Jonas, a retired doctor who had worked in the infected Obstetrics ward of a Los Angeles Hospital in the 1950's and 1960 and later for Planned Parenthood. He shares his memories of treating women who had attempted illegal abortions:

Most patients were too afraid to tell the doctors how they had tried to abort. But Jonas remembers one woman opened up to him as she lay dying in the hospital. She was 23 and married, with three children, when she became pregnant with her fourth child.

"She told me that she couldn't bear the idea of having a fourth child so quickly, so soon, and that they just plain couldn't afford another child."

So the woman visited an abortionist who took a straightened wire coat hanger encased by a rubber tube, and inserted this inside the woman's vagina. The attempted abortion failed and the mother returned to the abortionist, who fished the contraption out of the trash pile in her yard and reattempted the procedure.

Infected with gas gangrene the woman lasted three days in the hospital. Her liver and kidneys were destroyed, and eventually she went into a coma. Jonas says he stayed up one night giving her blood transfusions, but the woman passed away early that morning.


This is a horrible way to die.

But the woman acted out of desperation. Obviously, she made a very irrational choice.

And inflicted injury on herself.

Should public policy and cultural norms be based on the irrational choices made in desperation? Like, if I decide to rob banks out of desperation to pay my mortgage, should we make sure I have a bullet-proof vest so that I don't get killed?

As recounted by the doctor, her problem was not the child. The lady obviously felt burdened and financially strapped.

She had an emotional problem.

She had a financial problem.

Killing a human is not a solution to those problems. Well, okay, if you kill a kid, that's one less kid to feed, but we don't do that for the born, so it shouldn't be an option for the unborn.

Rather than seek life-affirming options, feminists and their enablers made death THE solution to the problems.

Now compare the horror of that self-inflicted abortion to the horror of an imposed abortion, that is from the fetus' point of view.

Consider the testimony of Brenda Pratt Schafer (posted here), a nurse who witnessed a partial birth abortion performed by Dr. Martin Haskell, the man who popularized the procedure.

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby," Shafer testified. "On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen."Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms -- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus."The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall."The abortion was nearly complete."The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out," Shafer said. "Now the baby was completely limp.


This baby did not choose to have scissors stabbed in his head and his brain sucked.

But this kind of violence is what feminists attempt to justify.

Women die in coathanger abortions (like the one detailed above).

So babies have to suffer and die for their sakes.

Does that make sense?

So because desperate pregnant women shove coathangers up their crotches to solve their problems and kill themselves in the process, we have to accept the inevitability of that behaviour and legalize violence against babies?

Babies must be the sacrificial lambs for the irrational desperation of women?

There are many things that are inevitable in this world.

We don't necessarily accept them.

All form of crime is inevitable. We don't legalize it *purely* on the basis that we can't stop it.

The bottom line is that while feminists only acknowledge the woman's suffering in abortion, they do not acknowledge the unborn child's suffering.

It is often suggested that acknowledging rights for the unborn child would pit mother against child.

But it's feminists who pit mother against child, by siding with one and not the other.

Pro-lifers say both are important. Both sides of the issue must be addressed. Both lives must be respected.

And I know the next objection: that I chose the most graphic kind of abortion to make my point.

True.

But even if a baby that is too young to feel pain is aborted, he still loses out.

He loses out on his life. He is just as entitled to life as the woman.

That's why solutions that seek to respect both lives must be sought.

Not a solution that pits one against the other.

Liberal feminist makes pro-life presentation at McGill U.

She said:

"Most of the early population controllers were white males who were not worried about ethics or the health effects of the pill, intrauterine devices, or abortion. They just wanted to get population numbers down, especially the numbers of poor people and minorities," Meehan said.

But I thought atheists didn't want to convert anyone

TORONTO - The eyes of atheist and humanist groups across Canada are on Toronto, where a group is proposing to plaster ads that question the existence of God on the city's transit buses.


I thought atheism was all about "live and let live."

I thought atheists just wanted to be left alone.

And isn't it a little prejudiced to suggest that theists do not enjoy their lives, that they are mired in misery?

Some advice for Hamas

The English website of Al-Jazeera has published an article offering some excellent advice for Hamas, from a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. (I don't agree with everything written, but it had some very good points!)

Aside from the moral and legal problems associated with such attacks - whether by rockets or suicide bombs - Hamas and other militant groups failed to understand that terrorism rarely succeeds unless the insurgency deploying it is already strong enough demographically, militarily and politically to defeat the occupier.

(...)

With the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada, Hamas's reliance on extreme violence - in its rhetoric as well as actions - overshadowed other forms of Palestinian resistance, giving Israel the necessary cover to deploy an even greater intensity of violence across the Territories.

(...)

Successful non-violent movements, such as in the US, India or (for the most part) South Africa, succeeded because, in Gandhi's words, they sought "to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer".

As Gandhi explained it, the goal of non-violence must be to obtain the cooperation of one's opponent to achieve a just end to a conflict, utilising means that reflect rather than degrade the justice of one's cause.

(...)

Rhetoric matters too.

Israel has justified the war on the grounds of its security concerns.

When during the past year Hamas leaders talked proudly of making "death an industry of the Palestinian people" and creating "human shields" composed of old people and children, or declared Jewish children everywhere to have become legitimate targets of murder (as did Hamas commander Mahmoud Zahar in a televised broadcast on January 5), the movement helped normalise the intensifying siege on Gaza, playing into deep-seated Western - and particularly American and Israeli - stereotypes of Muslim irrationality and brutality.

(...)

As no less a supporter of Palestinian rights than Norman Finkelstein argues, it has left "Palestinians ... [with] little to show for the violent resistance ... It is at least arguable that the balance-sheet would have been better had Palestinians en masse adopted non-violent civil resistance"



In plain English: how's that terrorism workin'?


H/T: Jay Currie

Monday, January 19, 2009

Sorry, Republicans [pro-lifers], there is no magic Internet button.

I could not agree more with Andrew Breitbart:

Sorry, Republicans, there is no magic Internet button.

The Democratic Party resonates on the Internet because it resonates in pop culture. The Democratic Party resonates in pop culture because it has been committed to dominating it for over a generation.

(...)

Democrats throw parties, get models to show up, and Red Bull and Stoli pick up the tab. Republicans feature a no-host bar hoping an astronaut from the Mercury mission stops by.


I think that we have to be more plugged in through the internet.

But what he said of Republicans is even more true of Canadian pro-lifers.

But how to start?

Here's the thing.

Democrats did not come to dominate American culture in one fell swoop.

Part of the reason why they dominate is because they developed a counter-culture to begin with.

They talked amongst themselves. They were creative. They produce art and other cultural products.

We have pro-lifers have no culture.

Pro-lifers used to think it was a matter of educating people and getting people to vote for pro-life MP's, and we would get legislation banning abortion.

Although it's still true that we need to do that, we can't think in terms of tactics to achieve a legislative goal, but in terms of forming a movement to change the culture and creating momentum.

Think of successful movements in the past. The feminist movement. The gay rights movement. The peace movement. And so on.

They were successful because they transformed the culture through the words they said and the cultural products they created.

They started by talking amongst themselves.

The problem with pro-lifers, as I see it, is that they're too busy to bother.

They're too busy with their spouse and kids to do anything, let alone engage in cultural transformation.

One of the advantages that left-wing movements have is that they have a large number of single people dedicated to ideology.

When you have kids and a mortgage, you have far less time. Or energy.

Or so we think.

We have to stop thinking that way.

I have three kids and a mortgage.

I blog about the pro-life movement just about every single day. It is my most heartfelt passion, my dearest wish, to see fetal rights established in this country, and I will not rest until that dream comes true. I will work towards this goal every single day until I see it become a reality. And should I die before that reality comes true, I will pray for an end to abortion in heaven.

I know other activists feel the same.

But there are too few of us.

We have to start asking ourselves: how badly do we want fetal rights established in this country?

Do pro-lifers want to limit their pro-life involvement to 40 Days for Life and voting for a pro-life politician once every four years (as laudable as these things are...)

You reap what you sow. Pro-lifers will get the results that they work for.

And so far, the results are null.

If we do not change hearts and minds, we will not get fetal rights legislation.

If we do not coalesce into a movement, into a community, and build off the momentum, the energy of being together and working towards a common cause, nothing will happen.

Think about the last forty years. That's pretty much what happened and we have nothing to show for it.

It is this creation of a community and an identity, of an enjoyable culture that we will attract people to our cause.

Even if we managed to convert every Canadian to Jesus, if we do not make our cause a source something that creates emotional resonance, we'll still have a tough time passing pro-life legislation, because if we don't care enough to build our own culture of life, why should the rest of the world?

I don't have any magic solutions. I just know that this is what must be done. If we do not accomplish this, we will not succeed.

Andrew Breitbart was 100% correct.

H/T: Adam's Blog.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Melissa Ohden: abortion survivor

I came upon this article about a pro-life rally in Sioux City Iowa. It mentioned the presence of Melissa Ohden, who said that she had survived an abortion attempt in the womb.

Curious to learn more about her story, I googled her name on the internet and found her blog. It's a very personal story.

In one post, she tells of how she learned the truth from her adoptive mother when she was age 14:

Nothing could have prepared me for the words that came next; not an ounce of my being could have ever fathomed the great secret that the world around me had harbored the past 14 years of my life. “Your mother had an abortion during her fifth month of pregnancy, and you survived it.”

All at once the wind was sucked out of my lungs and my stomach turned sour. Tears streaming, cries racking my body, my mother consoled me that night, and our lives were forever changed.


Supporters of Legal Abortion (SOLAS for short) want to make some kind of distinction between the human being at the fetal stage, and at the post-natal stage, as if the two stages made the baby into two entirely different creatures.

The way they attempt to frame the issue goes something like this:

Before birth, Melissa Ohden did not exist.

After birth, Melissa Ohden existed.

As if her body were an entirely different body.

Now of course, we're looking at this from the post-natal perspective. From the pre-natal perspective, SOLAS speak as if the fetus were a nobody because he has no consciousness or any number of characterisits because they do not know and cannot know that unborn child.

But Melissa Ohden was not a nobody in the womb. She was simply waiting to be known.

Just because she did not have consciousness at the time of the abortion doesn't mean she did not exist.

In the same way, just because a fetus does not possess the characteristics of a newborn does not mean he's not fully human with his own personal identity. True, that personal identity is not known. But the fact that it is not known does not mean that that that unborn child does not have his own uniqueness, his own inherent likeness.

SOLAs often consciousness the defining characteristic of whether or not a fetus is a person, i.e. equal to born human beings.

But here's the point: the reality of human existence, humanity and human identity does not depend on anyone's consciousness.

It does not depend on the fetus' consciousness.

It does not depend on society's acknowledgement.

It does not depend on the mother's acknowledgement.

Once a fetus exists, a distinct individual, with his unique characteristics, exists.

As the old cliche goes, a fetus is not a potential human, but a human with potential.

Every potential is different.

The way some SOLAs speak of the fetus, it's as if he's this interchangeable glob.

The attitude seems to be: you've seen one fetus, you seen them all.

But that's not true.

The unborn are just as distinct as any born human beings.

Even pregnant moms can know the truth of this. Babies don't all kick the same way in the womb. Some babies are stretchers-- long, drawn out kicks. Some might be compared to soccer players, and other little ninjas with non-stop action.

All fetuses are different.

When the mother was "ending her pregnancy", she was not just putting an end to an undesired state. She was taking action to end the life of a specific human individual.

That's what some SOLAs don't seem to realize.

In Canada, every year, over 100 000 human individuals are killed.

SOLAs treat them like human waste, or "blobs of tissue". In fact, they fall back on calling them "zygotes" or "clump of cells" without any regard to the fetus' individuality.

They cannot come to grips with that individuality. They must dehumanize the unborn.

That individuality exists at all stages-- from the zygote to birth and beyond.

Melissa Ohden was Melissa Ohden at the zygote stage. At the blastocyst stage. At the embryo stage and the fetal stage. It's just that the world did not know it.

She was the same being at birth.

They are all one and the same.

The thing about abortion is that we don't get to see who was actually aborted. Melissa Ohden was lucky. She survived. We can look around on her site and see what she's all about.

But there have been millions and millions of individuals who have been lost. We never got to see them. They are just as distinct as Melissa Ohden.

They are nameless, faceless, anonymous. It's easier to kill when you consider that the being killed is an embryo, and not a distinct person.

I think that's one reason why showing abortion-minded women an ultrasound often changes their mind about abortion. Not only do they see the humanity of the unborn, they implicitly sense that that baby is an individual.

Not some abstract concept.

Not some tissue.

But someone with an identity, the human essence waiting to be known and loved.

SOLAs often attribute negative ulterior motives to pro-lifers. They are as certain as any fundamentalist that supporting fetal rights is about controlling women.

I believe that some of them cannot see it any other way because they would have to confront the humanity of the fetus and the logic of opposing his human rights.

If SOLAs were to acknowledge the individuality and the humanity of the unborn, they would come to the unbearable conclusion that they were promoting the widescale slaughter of human beings, just like in variuos genocidal regimes.

They must maintain the belief that fetuses are all the same; they are no more than a clump of tissue and organic processes that possess nothing distinctive or worthy about them.

If people really come to know who and what a fetus is, and maintain that all human beings are worthy, they cannot support legal abortion.

That's why SOLAs just about never confront the reality of the fetus or the nature of abortion.

They'd have to confront ideas like the fact that Melissa Ohden almost died because of them.

It's too unbearable.

Friday, January 16, 2009

My New Swear Word



A little vulgar. But then abortion is vulgar.

On the word "fetus"

Says Rev. Bourgeois:

Why would we adopt a Latin word meaning baby to describe what we already know is a baby in formation? It seems that word-use here is used to minimize the defined organism. If the organism in formation were readily called a “baby,” the human mind with emotion would perhaps trigger a different response.

No one wants to think about the killing of babies. To justify aborting unborn babies, the abortionist may be minimizing the identity of the unborn child by calling this developing organism a “fetus,” the Latin word for baby.


This is why one of my missions in life is to make "fetus" and "unborn baby" synonymous in our culture, both linguistically and emotionally.

My screensaver consists of pictures of my family. On of the pictures I have is of Daughter #3 (the most recent) when she was in my womb.



I told my 3-year-old that it was a picture of her sister when she was a "fetus". DD#2 said "Fetus?" I said "Yes. A fetus is a baby in the womb."

In my estimation, that's what we should be doing. We can't humanize the fetus in the minds of abortionists, but we can humanize the word "fetus" in the culture.

By humanizing the word "fetus", we take away one instrument fetal rights opponents use to oppress the unborn.

The Origin of the Condom

I just love history. And while I was browsing on the internet, I happened upon this fairly lengthy abstract of an article published in the British Medical Journal. It gives a run-down of the history of the condom. So, for your enjoyment, I will re-print it here:

Although it is one of medicine's most effective advances, we know tantalisingly little about the origins of the condom. The likes of Bartolomeo Eustachio, James Parkinson, and Thomas Hodgkin have fallen over each other in the scramble to attach their names to parts of our anatomy or our ailments. Yet the identity of Dr Condom-if indeed such a medic ever existed-has remained, appropriately, sheathed in mystery. Suggested references to early condoms in prehistoric cave paintings and ancient Egyptian tomb art probably owe more to researchers' overly fertile imaginations than to hard evidence. Historians are on firmer ground with records from Asia that document condom use before the 15th century. Fashioned from oiled paper or animal membrane in China, and from tortoiseshell or animal horn in Japan, these were minimalist devices that dealt only with the tip of the problem. The appearance of syphilis in Europe at the end of the 15th century spurred Westerners to follow suit. The Italian anatomist Gabriele Falloppia advocated a prophylactic made of linen as a barrier against the disease and in 1564 said: "I tried the experiment on eleven hundred men, and I call immortal God to witness that not one of them was infected." Because the eponymous Fallopian tubes had already been named, his invention remained nameless. The earliest surviving examples of condoms, made from mammal and fish intestines and dating back to 1646, were recently discovered in a latrine at Dudley Castle, England, where they had probably been flung by Royalist troops making a hasty exit. But the first reference in print to the name that has endured was penned by the irrepressible libertine John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, in a poem written in 1665 entitled A Panegyric upon Cundum. Plainly his enthusiasm was in vain, for Rochester died in his prime of venereal disease. It may have been his ode that spawned the belief that condoms were invented by a physician to Charles II named Dr Condon or Condom. But it seems that Dr Condom never existed. Nevertheless, by the 18th century condoms were widely available, though not universally enjoyed. James Boswell donned "armour" for one of his numerous encounters but grumbled that it was "a dull satisfaction." This was scarcely surprising, as condoms were generally made from sheep's or pig's gut, secured with a silk ribbon. Condoms acquired a certain foreign allure. Casanova described his experience in an "English overcoat." But although an early 18th century poem praised "matchless Condon" whose fame would last "as long as Condon is a Name," the identity of the inventor of one of the world's favourite contraceptives remains hidden.

Dissenters from Catholic Teaching Not Being Fired Often Enough from Seminary Posts: Vatican Report

Here's what bugs me.

How come the people who are supposed to do the fired chosen in the first place...

And why aren't they fired?

Why is Tim Hudak campaigning for John Tory in HKLB

Inquiring minds want to know.

Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock should be a safe seat for John Tory,especially considering he is the leader.

It could be because the likes of the Toronto Star-- which is representative of the elitist socially liberal chattering classes of urban Ontario-- consider John Tory "urbane" and "progressive". That's code for supporting big government, abortion, and lots of tax-and-spend.

If he were really a threat to those with a vested interest in big government-- be they financial or ideological-- do you think the Toronto Star would be so keen on him?

John Tory needs someone like Tim Hudak to soften his Red Tory image to the right-wing voters of HKLB. A by-election to elect a leader of the opposition should be a walk in the park.

And why is the press even asking Tim Hudak about his support for John Tory. Shouldn't it be obvious that he supports his leader?

This does not bode well for the PC's. Even if John Tory does get elected, will he support socially and fiscally conservative policies?

Based on his past, somehow I doubt it.

Voters of HKLB, if you want to support a truly conservative option, vote for the Family Coalition Party.

Just a sick story all around

This article has so many sick angles...just read it. Culture of Death gone berserk...

Mother gets death after ordering her son's murder

A REMARRIED bank clerk in northern China has been sentenced to death for hiring a hit man to strangle her son so she could have a child with her new husband and avoid violating population-control policies.

The sentence was handed down recently by Shaanxi Higher People's Court, overturning a lower court ruling that gave the defendant the possibility of serving only a life sentence, the Chinese Business View newspaper reported yesterday.

The defendant was identified as Li Yingfang, 36, who used to work in a branch of the Agricultural Bank of China in Chengcheng County, Shaanxi Province.

In 1997, Li gave birth to a son, Cao Yifan, while married to a man named Cao Yajun.

Li's husband died in 2002, and she signed an agreement with his mother to take custody of the child. Under the agreement, Li had the right to visit her son and to care for him for short periods.

In 2004, Li married a man surnamed Hou. She became pregnant twice but had abortions both times because Hou's ex-wife told authorities about the couple's violation of the provincial "one-child" policy. Remarried couples in Shaanxi are not allowed to bear children if both parties already have a child.

Hou has a daughter from a previous marriage, the report said.

Li then paid 70,000 yuan (US$10,238) to hire a person named Wang Ruijie to kill Hou's daughter, the court said.

Wang attacked the girl on November 23, 2006, but she put up a fight and caused Wang to flee, authorities said.

Li then decided to kill her own son to resolve the family conflict, authorities said.

She prepared a strip of cloth and took her son with her to a meeting with Wang, who had rented a car. The hit man drove into the country and strangled the boy, leaving his body on the roadside, according to the court.

Li and Wang were detained by police a few days later. The Weinan Intermediate People's Court sentenced Li to death with a two-year reprieve in 2007 after it found she suffered depression and other emotional trauma after her second abortion.

Wang was also sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve. The reprieve usually means the sentence will be commuted to life in prison if the defendant behaves properly during the reprieve period.

The mother and hit man were also ordered to pay Cao Yifan's grandmother 45,000 yuan in compensation.

Prosecutors protested and demanded that the death sentence be carried out for both defendants.

The Shaanxi Higher People's Court found that Li's depression was not directly relevant to the crime and sentenced her to death. The court upheld Wang's sentence but increased the compensation to 65,000 yuan.