Hi folks.
I'm still getting settled after my move. I had to connect to Blogger using dial up as my High Speed connection is not set up. (Sooooo slow).Therefore I cannot effectively moderate my comments, so it may take a while for your comments to appear.
As always...check out the sidebar.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
VIDEO: Protesters burn cop car
I'm to lazy and tired to post the video, so go here.
Yeah, that makes me want to join your movement: watching a bunch of violent thugs destroy public property. It just reeks of credibility.
Wasn't anyone afraid the gas tank was going to explode?
Ghost of a Flea has more videos.
Yeah, that makes me want to join your movement: watching a bunch of violent thugs destroy public property. It just reeks of credibility.
Wasn't anyone afraid the gas tank was going to explode?
Ghost of a Flea has more videos.
Abortion-supporting British OB\GYN's say fetuses can't feel pain until 24 weeks
Which happens to correspond to the abortion gestational limit in Britian. What a coincidence!
The National Right to Life responds:
I guess it all depends on how you define "pain", huh? Aversive reaction to painful stimuli doesn't count.
The National Right to Life responds:
Its authors (predominantly abortion advocates and at least one abortionist) based their claim that unborn children do not experience pain before 24 weeks on the absence of complete nerve connection to the cortex before then.
They ignore the seminal 2007 publication of "Consciousness without a cerebral cortex," in the medical journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences and dismiss its evidence that children born missing virtually all of the cerebral cortex nonetheless experience pain.
Ironically, the article concedes the evidence that by 20 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child's skin, that these are linked by nerves to the thalamus and the subcortal plate, and that these children have coordinated aversive reactions to painful stimuli, and experience increased stress hormones from it.
I guess it all depends on how you define "pain", huh? Aversive reaction to painful stimuli doesn't count.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Pro-life Protest at G20 Toronto SUNDAY
#G20 #Prolife rally at Queen's Park South Lawn, Sunday from 1-2 PM. Organized by Aid to Women. #maternalhealth
If you have a couple of hours, and you're in Toronto, why not drop by?
If you have a couple of hours, and you're in Toronto, why not drop by?
The people who denounce "hate" tend to be hypocrites
I'm sure you've met them.
The jerks whose idea of a comeback in the face of right-wing social commentary is to denounce the writer/speaker as a "hater".
It's supposed to shut people up. As if being a "hater" invalidates everything you just said.
I've noticed that the type of people who do this tend to be very hateful themselves. They denounce hatred towards specific groups-- gays, minorities, and women. But they never denounce hate against Christians, straights and men. And they tend to engage in hate themselves.
It's okay when they do it. See, right-wingers are NON-persons to them.
Don't expect any feminists to denounce the misogyny. It would undermine their cause.
I've always wanted to write a parody of that. But it would involve too many f-words.
The jerks whose idea of a comeback in the face of right-wing social commentary is to denounce the writer/speaker as a "hater".
It's supposed to shut people up. As if being a "hater" invalidates everything you just said.
I've noticed that the type of people who do this tend to be very hateful themselves. They denounce hatred towards specific groups-- gays, minorities, and women. But they never denounce hate against Christians, straights and men. And they tend to engage in hate themselves.
It's okay when they do it. See, right-wingers are NON-persons to them.
Don't expect any feminists to denounce the misogyny. It would undermine their cause.
I've always wanted to write a parody of that. But it would involve too many f-words.
Why I am not a feminist
From Abortion Gang:
Yeah, if you're a feminist, it is obligatory to support a woman's right to have her unborn child killed at her discretion. If you believe in the equal rights of ALL human beings, then you cannot be a feminist. You must believe that women's rights are above everyone else's rights.
If you believe in personal responsibility, and that poverty is mostly caused by people's own dumb choices, then you can't be a feminist-- because then you couldn't feel entitled to taxpayer money.
Ayn Rand had an interesting saying. She said if you want to fight poverty, don't be poor. In other words, make the decisions that lead you to not needing to depend on other people.
But that's just crazy talk in the feminist world. Sleep around, divorce, kill your unborn children, just do whatever you darn well feel like without any consideration of how it affects others or your future economic situation. Whine like a baby that it's unfair that you have to assume the consequences of your own choices. Smoking, drinking, drugging, living in debt, that's your prerogative as a woman and NOBODY should ever question the choices that led to your economic situation. That would be "judgemental". Judgementalism is ALWAYS wrong, even if it points to FACTS that would actually help you out of your situation.
In other words, you have to be a liberal.
Why people on the right insist on calling themselves feminists, I don't know.
Let them have their "feminist" label. Then marginalize them. So few people meet all the qualifications that if we all gang up on feminists, they'll never have their way. We're so afraid of being labelled "anti-women"-- as if a minority of women can define what's "pro-women" for the rest of us.
Feminism is an ideology. It's not the truth. Labelling people "misogynistic" is a rhetorical tactic; it's not a description of reality. The sooner we unmask feminism for what it is, without fear of reproach, the sooner we can stop the insanity and really help women. And men, too.
The other thing we should do is stop every feminist who tries to use "faux feminists" to make them seem like they're more numerous than they are. You know what I'm talking about-- those women who start off their statements by saying "I'm not a feminist but...". If they're saying "I'm not a feminist", it's probably because they dissent from feminist orthodoxy in some major way, even if they express support for abortion, or pay equity, or universal daycare or whatever.
Orthodoxy is a necessary part of feminism. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. It's a closed club, and anyone who dissents is out of the club.
You can’t call yourself a feminist and deny women the right to make their own healthcare decisions. If you are anti-choice, you simply can NOT be a feminist.
Yeah, if you're a feminist, it is obligatory to support a woman's right to have her unborn child killed at her discretion. If you believe in the equal rights of ALL human beings, then you cannot be a feminist. You must believe that women's rights are above everyone else's rights.
Poverty rates are much higher for women than they are for men, which requires feminists to fight for the rights of ALL Americans, not just those in the top tax bracket.
If you believe in personal responsibility, and that poverty is mostly caused by people's own dumb choices, then you can't be a feminist-- because then you couldn't feel entitled to taxpayer money.
Ayn Rand had an interesting saying. She said if you want to fight poverty, don't be poor. In other words, make the decisions that lead you to not needing to depend on other people.
But that's just crazy talk in the feminist world. Sleep around, divorce, kill your unborn children, just do whatever you darn well feel like without any consideration of how it affects others or your future economic situation. Whine like a baby that it's unfair that you have to assume the consequences of your own choices. Smoking, drinking, drugging, living in debt, that's your prerogative as a woman and NOBODY should ever question the choices that led to your economic situation. That would be "judgemental". Judgementalism is ALWAYS wrong, even if it points to FACTS that would actually help you out of your situation.
A commitment to healthcare for all, better school systems, better childcare, marriage equality, AND reproductive justice, among many other issues, are critical to being able to call yourself a feminist.
In other words, you have to be a liberal.
Why people on the right insist on calling themselves feminists, I don't know.
Let them have their "feminist" label. Then marginalize them. So few people meet all the qualifications that if we all gang up on feminists, they'll never have their way. We're so afraid of being labelled "anti-women"-- as if a minority of women can define what's "pro-women" for the rest of us.
Feminism is an ideology. It's not the truth. Labelling people "misogynistic" is a rhetorical tactic; it's not a description of reality. The sooner we unmask feminism for what it is, without fear of reproach, the sooner we can stop the insanity and really help women. And men, too.
The other thing we should do is stop every feminist who tries to use "faux feminists" to make them seem like they're more numerous than they are. You know what I'm talking about-- those women who start off their statements by saying "I'm not a feminist but...". If they're saying "I'm not a feminist", it's probably because they dissent from feminist orthodoxy in some major way, even if they express support for abortion, or pay equity, or universal daycare or whatever.
Orthodoxy is a necessary part of feminism. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. It's a closed club, and anyone who dissents is out of the club.
Ottawa Public Health distributed 800 000 condoms in 2009
Says the Public Health Unit Report (page 9).
I have a question.
How many people would NOT have had sexual relations if those condoms had not been available.
And how many of those people who used condoms got infected anyway? (And how many women got pregnant).
Too bad we couldn't do a study on that.
I have a question.
How many people would NOT have had sexual relations if those condoms had not been available.
And how many of those people who used condoms got infected anyway? (And how many women got pregnant).
Too bad we couldn't do a study on that.
Atheism
The way the Ball bounces:
Atheists want the benefits of theism without buying in to the obligations. Atheists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to shout their independence and wave their rebellious fists from the housetops proclaiming "there ain't no god!" while preserving the attributes of being human that only make sense and can only exist if they were created by God and, as humans, are somehow special, different from animals.
Does pond scum have dignity? Molecules? Earth worms? Ducks?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Sex-positive?
From the Abortion Gang:
When you're married, faithful and open to life, sex is always safe. It's the safest sex in the world.
Funny how that just never comes up.
Public condom giveaways constituted once facet of my membership in a sexual health peer education group to which I belonged during my final year of college. This student-led, faculty-advised organization was and is, perhaps, most well-known for its interactive sex toy workshop, which features vibrators, dildos, cock rings, and “pocket pussies,” among other taboo playthings. Student workshop facilitators explain the proper usage and maintenance of said items with the end goal of informing their peers how to safely eroticize their sex lives.
When you're married, faithful and open to life, sex is always safe. It's the safest sex in the world.
Funny how that just never comes up.
Archbishop Miller says: Be involved in protecting the right to life
A message from Archbishop Miller of Vancouver issued on pro-life Sunday (June 21):
Dear brother priests, religious, and lay faithful of the Archdiocese of Vancouver:
Life issues are increasingly being discussed and debated today in the media and even government. No issue is more important for our society and country. It calls each of us to be part of the solution to the tragedy of abortion and to the growing threat of imposed death for the elderly and infirm.
We applaud initiatives such as legislation which aims at guaranteeing respect for the integrity and dignity of pregnant women by protecting their physical and psychological well-being. After the overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384, that sought to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, we must continue to fight for proper palliative care.
We must contest those forces which promote hateful attacks on public and Church figures because of their conviction that every person has the right to be born regardless of the circumstances of conception. Moreover, we must oppose all efforts which confuse maternal health with access to abortion.
As Catholics, we have an obligation as citizens of Canada and as people of faith to foster a culture of life in the public arena. It is necessary to keep abreast of proposed legislation and to be involved with the political process by voting conscientiously and perhaps even running for public office.
On this Pro-life Sunday, I urge you to recommit yourselves to the sacred cause of life and to help financially equip pro-life organizations, such as crisis pregnancy centres, to serve our communities.
Even more, I urge you to become personally involved. Let us act in small and large ways – to pray, to witness, to volunteer, and to support the pro-life groups in our local communities.
We can make a difference; the time is now, and the tide is turning.
With gratitude for your support and with the assurance of my prayers, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ J. Michael Miller, CSB
Archbishop of Vancouver
Dear brother priests, religious, and lay faithful of the Archdiocese of Vancouver:
Life issues are increasingly being discussed and debated today in the media and even government. No issue is more important for our society and country. It calls each of us to be part of the solution to the tragedy of abortion and to the growing threat of imposed death for the elderly and infirm.
We applaud initiatives such as legislation which aims at guaranteeing respect for the integrity and dignity of pregnant women by protecting their physical and psychological well-being. After the overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384, that sought to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, we must continue to fight for proper palliative care.
We must contest those forces which promote hateful attacks on public and Church figures because of their conviction that every person has the right to be born regardless of the circumstances of conception. Moreover, we must oppose all efforts which confuse maternal health with access to abortion.
As Catholics, we have an obligation as citizens of Canada and as people of faith to foster a culture of life in the public arena. It is necessary to keep abreast of proposed legislation and to be involved with the political process by voting conscientiously and perhaps even running for public office.
On this Pro-life Sunday, I urge you to recommit yourselves to the sacred cause of life and to help financially equip pro-life organizations, such as crisis pregnancy centres, to serve our communities.
Even more, I urge you to become personally involved. Let us act in small and large ways – to pray, to witness, to volunteer, and to support the pro-life groups in our local communities.
We can make a difference; the time is now, and the tide is turning.
With gratitude for your support and with the assurance of my prayers, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ J. Michael Miller, CSB
Archbishop of Vancouver
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
US: Former acting solicitor general predicts overturn of Roe v. Wade
But it's still a long way off.
Fetal rights: it's coming. May take a few years. May take several decades.
It's inevitable.
H/T: Jill Stanek
Fetal rights: it's coming. May take a few years. May take several decades.
It's inevitable.
H/T: Jill Stanek
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Canadian Fetal Rights Victory: Ontario’s Highest Court: Ob/Gyns Owe Care to Unborn Child
Woohoo!
It doesn't actually affect the legal status of the fetus.
However, in practice, it will make obstetricians responsible for the well-being of prenatal human beings.
Interesting how the law says that OB\GYN's have a duty of care to a beings who do not exist as far as the law is concerned.
But that is the ridiculousness of that legal fiction.
It doesn't actually affect the legal status of the fetus.
However, in practice, it will make obstetricians responsible for the well-being of prenatal human beings.
Interesting how the law says that OB\GYN's have a duty of care to a beings who do not exist as far as the law is concerned.
But that is the ridiculousness of that legal fiction.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Blogging may be light
I'm in the process of moving.
I really want to sit here and blog about stuff but so much stuff needs to be packed!
In the meanwhile, read my sidebar. :)
I really want to sit here and blog about stuff but so much stuff needs to be packed!
In the meanwhile, read my sidebar. :)
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Charles McVety invites you to a prayer rally for G20 leaders
The prayer rally is free. The conference is not.
Received by email:
Received by email:
Hi :
As you know the G-20 World Leaders are coming to Toronto, June 25 – 27. On Saturday evening, June 26th we are going to gather in praise and prayer to petition God to guide these leaders toward peace and freedom.
Your voice of prayer is critical for such a time as this.
I want to personally invite you to gather with us and ask the living God to intercede on our behalf. I Timothy 2 commands us “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.”
The world is fraught with peril today. Countries such as Greece are already bankrupt and cannot pay their employees. Spain is in deep trouble financially and the United States owes over $13 Trillion. Canada is going deeper in debt every day as our government wastes billions of dollars on needless projects. Our environment deteriorates as pollution grows while the G-20 throws trillions of dollars at reducing CO2, a natural necessary part of air. War in the Middle East could break out any day with President Ahmadinejad of Iran building nuclear weapons and threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”.
With these leaders down the street in our city of Toronto we have an ideal opportunity to pray for them.
Dr. Paul Dhinakaran will lead us to the Throne of Grace for such a time as this. He has one of the largest ministries in the world and is a world leader in prayer receiving over 20,000 prayer requests per day. His prayer rallies average over 500,000 people per night. God has spoken to Dr. Paul giving him a special impartation for us in these days.
Please try to clear you busy schedule and be with us on Saturday, June 26th at 7:00pm Admission is free.
This is part of a larger G-20 Summit for Faith and Business Leaders. Karl Rove will speak to us on how to effect change democratically. Dr. Grant Jeffrey will teach us history and prophecy and several other speakers will prepare us for these days. On Sunday evening we will gather for a Rally to Stop Nuclear Iran.
For details go to http://www.g20.ca/index.html
I hope to see you at the Summit.
Dr. Charles McVety
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Anti-Catholic Strategy
From Catholicism for Everyone:
Seeing as relativism is the philosophy of the day, people don't know how to evaluate what is said to them.
So credibility is the only intellectual currency that matters.
As long as they can smear the Church, anti-Catholics can get people to focus on past sins, and not on the substance of what is being said by Church representatives.
This game could be easily played with any collectivity. "Oh, you're a Liberal-- your Pierre Trudeau racked up billions of dollars in debt-- why should we listen to you on economic matters."
Etc.
It struck me that what the media wants is for the Church to feel so ashamed of its activities that it will not speak up against any evil or injustice. It doesn't matter if any of the accusations against the church are true. All that matters is that the Church is silenced. I've actually seen this strategy many times before. When the Church speaks out on any issue whatsoever, someone is bound to bring up sex abuse allegations as some sort of proof that the Church should just but out.
I am starting to realize one of the main goals of the media coverage of the Church - to remove in people's minds its moral authority. Obviously this is totally absurd. There has been abuse in the church, but the vast majority of people in the Church, such as priests and nuns, are innocent. They have valid points to make and deserve to be heard.
The media and many individuals do not like hearing what the Church has to say. They only want approval for their actions. The Church speaks the Truth, and people are trying hard to silence the Truth.
Imagine a school where there are 50 teachers. One teacher is accused of sexual abuse. Now, imagine someone saying that no one should listen to any of the teachers in the school because of this. The school has no authority to teach anything because of what this teacher did. That would be absurd.
Seeing as relativism is the philosophy of the day, people don't know how to evaluate what is said to them.
So credibility is the only intellectual currency that matters.
As long as they can smear the Church, anti-Catholics can get people to focus on past sins, and not on the substance of what is being said by Church representatives.
This game could be easily played with any collectivity. "Oh, you're a Liberal-- your Pierre Trudeau racked up billions of dollars in debt-- why should we listen to you on economic matters."
Etc.
Many Moms Work to Pay Debt
Researchers asked mothers with children under the age of three what was their 'main' reason for going back to work.
More than 50 per cent said financial pressure, particularly significant debt problems, was to blame.
How can I afford to stay home with three kids?
I don't have a cent of consumer debt.
I'm really skeptical of the notion that most married mothers who work really have to.
A Poor Choice Columnist Asks the Question I've Been Wondering for Years
So I return to my first question: what is wrong with using the term “pro-abortion?” If we do not paint the term as a positive one; procedure that is not to be any more shameful than kidney biopsy have we not already lost the terminology war?
Feminists are not exactly protesting to make it legal to deliver babies. Even in places like China where abortion is co-erced, their protest against the illegal birthing is pretty weak.
When a movement tries to make abortion more available, when they want the government to pay for it, when they chide those who disapprove of abortion, they're pro-abortion.
The only reason I can think of that might make people shy away from the word "abortion" is that they don't want to be seen as favouring this:
The word "choice" attracts more people than the word "abortion" does.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Ottawa Abortion Clinic Doctor Disciplined
It appears that Dr. Fabisiak, who works at Morgentaler's Clinic at 65 Bank St. has been disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
"Allegations of Dr. Fabisiak's professional misconduct and incompetence have been referred to the Discipline Committee of the College. It is alleged that Dr. Fabisiak failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and is incompetent in his care and treatment of Patient "A", Patient "B" and 23 patients. "
He was forced to relinquish his prescription privileges in regards to narcotics and other substances. Although he may still practice at Family Planning Clinics.
His actions appear to be a drug issue. Does he administer chemical abortions, and would this require administering controlled drugs? I wonder...
I poked around on the CPSO website, and the disciplinary hearings page that Dr. Fabisiak's allegations deal with "withdrawal".
What does that mean? Did he improperly fail to deal with a patient going through withdrawal? Is he going through withdrawal? Is he leaving the profession?
I think the College has a responsibility to be a bit more forthcoming on its information.
[His hearing was today, by the way... we should keep an eye on any other announcements from the CPSO)
He has a page on RateMyMD.com
H/T: SoCon or Bust
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
She regrets her abortion after being raped
Irene Van de Wende:
My abortion took place in a cold, sinister old mansion. I felt very uncomfortable waiting in the hall with black-white checkered tiles, watching the minutes on the clock tick by. It was as if death hung as a cloud in the air above me. I did my best to stuff my emotions, signed a paper, received my number, and joined some eight women lying on beds in a room, waiting a long time after inserting something and changing into an operation garment that was to remain open. As they spoke of their pregnancies, morning sickness, and why they were killing their babies, I began to think. In the lift later, when I was going upstairs, I placed a hand over my tummy, finally realizing I had a child inside of me, and said, "I'm a mother.. I have a baby inside of me!" The nurse accompanying me reassured me, saying, "It's ok - other women have that thought too at the last minute - you’re doing the right thing," after which the doors opened, and I walked into a brightly lit operating room, where I was told to lie down, and place my legs up high in the stirrups. But I felt terrible and vulnerable due to the privacy, and even more so as the abortionist became very angry and agitated when the nurse discussed something with him, and he started to yell at me, saying I had already signed a consent form, hadn´t I? And that I was holding up the flow of things. He roughly grabbed my arms, which they strapped down, and forced a needle into my arm.....after which I don´t remember much....I passed out...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Why More Contraception Doesn't Work to Prevent Abortions (And Neither Does Sex Ed.)...
Why don't teenagers use contraception? A qualitative interview study.
(...)
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the causes of unintended pregnancies and, in particular, reasons for non-use of contraception among young women attending a day unit for surgical abortion.
METHODS: Women between the ages of 16 and 20 attending a day unit at a hospital in the north of England who were due to have, or had recently had, a surgical abortion were interviewed about their knowledge of and views on contraception, sex education, and sexual health services. Twenty-four young women were interviewed, 22 on the day unit, one in her home and one over the phone, after the abortion. Interviews were recorded with the consent of the interviewees and fully transcribed. Transcripts were analysed using a grounded theory approach.
RESULTS: The most common reasons for non-use of contraception related to forgetting or 'not thinking', being 'in the moment' (i.e., being 'in the mood', not wishing to 'break a spell'), the influence of alcohol, and pressure from young men not to use condoms. Lack of knowledge was rarely cited as a reason.
CONCLUSIONS: Young people are aware of the need to use contraception, and knowledgeable about its availability; however, they often do not think about using it, especially where sex is unplanned. Alcohol and being 'in the moment' are key factors which diminish the likelihood of contraceptive use.
Another Study Links Abortion to Breast Cancer
This study is about the relationship between prolonged breastfeeding and abortion in Sri Lankan women. However:
The significant factors associated with increased risk of breast cancer were: post-menopausal women (OR=1.74; 95%CI=1.01, 3.01); having an abortion in the past (OR=3.42; 95%CI=1.75, 6.66)
A legal abortion is a safe abortion?
Just an interesting abstract:
But...but...but....legalizing abortion was supposed to make it safe! Like magic!
Despite permissive laws and a well-developed network of facilities, the incidence of unsafe abortion and the resulting maternal mortality is unacceptably high in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, with one-quarter of all maternal deaths reported to occur as a consequence of abortion. Among the reasons that oblige women to submit themselves to risky procedures are new legislative barriers to accessing pregnancy termination, the unequal distribution of abortion services and healthcare providers, the increased costs of abortion services or unofficial payments, coupled with an increase in the number of impoverished and disadvantaged individuals. The quality of abortion services remains very poor. Safe abortion techniques, including manual vacuum aspiration under local anesthesia and medical abortion, are slowly being implemented. Less safe methods such as dilatation and curettage and general anesthesia are widely used. Unsafe techniques are also practiced extensively in the case of second trimester abortions. Many women from these regions of the world still rely on and accept abortion as a means of fertility control. Although abortions have fallen significantly in Eastern Europe over the last decade, both in absolute numbers and as rates, this region continues to have the highest abortion rates in the world. Concerted efforts by governments, professional associations, and international donors are needed to reduce the consequences of unsafe abortion. (c) 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
But...but...but....legalizing abortion was supposed to make it safe! Like magic!
College Kids Giving Up the Hook Up Culture
From CNN:
NO KIDDING.
Look, it's been tried.
If you give yourself to every man you're interested in, it will only end up in heartbreak.
It's just common sense.
Casual hook ups fueled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene.
"I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction," said Boyle, shaking her blond ponytail. "I felt so empty then."
NO KIDDING.
Look, it's been tried.
If you give yourself to every man you're interested in, it will only end up in heartbreak.
It's just common sense.
Sun News coming to Canada (with video of commercial)
TORONTO — Canada will be getting another all-news TV channel, one that aims to banish the established "boring, smug and condescending" news networks to the sidelines with a snappy, right-wing take on current events modelled on America's wildly successful and controversial Fox News.
I understand the launch is January 1st, 2011.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Poor choicers question the word "choice"
Says Not Guilty at Abortion Gang:
But so-called "abortion rights" conflict with other rights. Parental rights. The right to informed consent.
How interesting that she feels these are "arbitrary" restrictions on abortion rights.
And here's another interesting right that abortion conflicts with: the right to life. The right to life trumps other rights every time.
When the humanity of the person being killed is recognized.
That's why abortion is framed solely as a medical operation. Don't like an abortion? Don't have one!
See, the choice is the right. (Actually, it's really a freedom). So it all boils down to the same thing.
What this lady is trying to advocate is for complete, unrestricted freedom to kill a fetus at any time. And she's trying to find the language to frame that policy choice.
The thing is, there are no rights that are not subjected to some kind of restriction.
The only way to really press for complete freedom on abortion is to advocate for feminist supremacy, which is what is done in Canada: feminist rights, especially those to abortion, trump all other rights and considerations.
Of course, nobody really likes that. You can't believe in equality and feminist supremacy.
A choice to terminate a pregnancy implies that one must be pregnant before one gets that choice. A right to terminate a pregnancy implies that every woman has that right, regardless of whether they ever become pregnant. I believe that moving towards the language of the right to abort would be of great benefit for the pro-choice movement. In everyday life, we are confronted with endless choices. The common thread is that most choices have limits placed on them by the government. There are limits on who you may choose as a sexual partner, specifically the other person must be a consenting adult. You may choose to drive, but you must be licensed and you must follow the rules of the road. Our everyday choices are qualified for the safety of society and nobody questions that.
When abortion is framed as a choice, it naturally follows that, as with all other choices, the choice to abort may be qualified.
(...)
I realize that I am extracting Canadian law and applying it to the “informed choice” laws of the United States, but I believe the principle crosses borders: rights should not be arbitrarily restricted. Abortion is a part of the right of a woman to control her reproduction. Just as it is unacceptable to put arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or speech, it should be considered unacceptable to put such arbitrary restrictions on abortion access in the name of informed choice. Ultrasound laws, parental notification laws, and mandatory waiting periods do not inform the choice to abort, they restrict the right to control one’s reproduction.
But so-called "abortion rights" conflict with other rights. Parental rights. The right to informed consent.
How interesting that she feels these are "arbitrary" restrictions on abortion rights.
And here's another interesting right that abortion conflicts with: the right to life. The right to life trumps other rights every time.
When the humanity of the person being killed is recognized.
That's why abortion is framed solely as a medical operation. Don't like an abortion? Don't have one!
See, the choice is the right. (Actually, it's really a freedom). So it all boils down to the same thing.
What this lady is trying to advocate is for complete, unrestricted freedom to kill a fetus at any time. And she's trying to find the language to frame that policy choice.
The thing is, there are no rights that are not subjected to some kind of restriction.
The only way to really press for complete freedom on abortion is to advocate for feminist supremacy, which is what is done in Canada: feminist rights, especially those to abortion, trump all other rights and considerations.
Of course, nobody really likes that. You can't believe in equality and feminist supremacy.
StatsCan releases stats on hate crimes in 2008
For those who might be interested in this kind of thing.
One of my beefs with this system is that it's based on the number of reported crimes.
Just because a crime was reported doesn't mean legal wrongdoing took place.
And oh yeah...
One of my beefs with this system is that it's based on the number of reported crimes.
Just because a crime was reported doesn't mean legal wrongdoing took place.
And oh yeah...
Information from police indicates that year-over-year changes do not necessarily reflect actual increases or decreases in the incidence of this type of offence since the number of hate crimes recorded in a given area can be influenced by many different factors. (...) In other words, the rate of hate crime in a given area may be more indicative of reporting practices by the public and local police services rather than prevalence levels.
VIDEO: Democratic congressman assaults student
Rep. Bob Etheridge (Democrat) of North Carolina (2nd District) appears to have been having a bad day. Or something.
I think a "no comment" would have sufficed.
I think a "no comment" would have sufficed.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Canada should aim for 100M in population, essay says
Canada should accelerate immigration rates to become a country of 100 million people and a proper world power instead of a nation content with "smallness" and little ambition to appreciably shape global affairs, says a rising star on public policy.
How about we just encourage people to have kids.
Without a decent birth rate, you can't rely on immigration to increase your population. You need a critical mass of immigrants to assimilate the population; otherwise your culture will become de-stabilized as people bring with them their own customs and beliefs, and impose them through their demographic weight.
Of course the most potent example of this is sharia, but even if you banned immigration from Muslim countries, we would still have problems.
The Armageddon Factor...more inaccuracies
Blogger Denyse O'Leary, who specializes in Intelligent Design, debunks the things Marci McDonald said about her in The Armageddon Factor.
Society of Obstetricians/Gynecologists Supports Canada's Maternal Health Initiative
Lifted from Run with Life:
Dr. Jean Chamberlain who founded "Save the Mothers" says “When I was in Uganda I heard that the G20 was focusing on maternal/child health and I just about cried,” in an interview at the Society of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) annual meeting.
While abortion might be a politically debate in Canada, Dr. Chamberlain, with her international experience, said: “Most of these countries won’t accept money for abortion anyway.” And providing adequate maternal and family-planning care will actually drop the 70,000 unsafe abortions that go on in the world each day. “Let’s stop unsafe abortions,” she said.
How pro-aborts think
Gotta love this post from Banana Grabber about the thirteen-year-old who self-aborted after having sex with a thirty-year-old pervert.
Yeah, cuz, thirteen-year-olds should be able to by-pass their parents' knowledge to get abortion to hide the evidence of rape...
All the more reason to tell the parents. Hey lady! Do you realize your kid is having sex with a man more than twice her age? That would be a bit of a wake-up call.
Here's an interesting passage:
If the guy is arrested, wouldn't the parents know about the abortion in the first place?
Isn't the rape issue the reason why the staffers at PP did not report the statutory rape in the first place because they did not want the parents to know to begin with?
She didn't. But she would not have gone to the clinic if she knew that her "boyfriend" would have gotten into trouble.
And killed her unborn child.
Who says it wouldn't have been. Lots of women have been traumatized by abortion.
See, people assume that thirteen-year-olds are mentally and emotionally equipped to make these decisions. She needed some kind of advocate. A thirteen-year-old doesn't know what's good for her-- obviously.
She didn't. She didn't have to stick a pencil up her crotch. She didn't have to do anything. Just because a girl is desperate doesn't mean she had to have done it.
In all likelihood, she didn't know what else to do. She needed guidance. From her parents.
And I must concur with this:
But I will add:
Don't have an abortion. Don't kill the unborn child within you. You can give birth.
Check out Birthright.org (USA and Canada).
Take something bad and make it into something good. CHOOSE LIFE for your unborn child. You will not regret it.
Pennsylvania has parental consent laws. She obviously did not want to tell her parents. How come none of the anti-choicers want to talk about that? If she was able to go to a clinic she wouldn't have been in this situation. THAT is the problem.
Yeah, cuz, thirteen-year-olds should be able to by-pass their parents' knowledge to get abortion to hide the evidence of rape...
Further, she is thirteen years old. She is child. I can say at thirteen I was in no shape to be having sex, and definitely not sex with someone SEVENTEEN years older than me. Can we take a step back and ask, why was this thirteen year old doing this? Her boyfriend/partner/creeper said he had sex with her "hundreds" of times. How did this happen? It troubles me this happened so many times yet nobody seemed to be aware. Of course, teens can be very sneaky and do a good job hiding things from their parents, but she is thirteen! I find it hard to believe a thirteen year old could sucessfully pull that off unless she is some sort of smooth talking magical pixie with a unicorn.
All the more reason to tell the parents. Hey lady! Do you realize your kid is having sex with a man more than twice her age? That would be a bit of a wake-up call.
Here's an interesting passage:
It is true there are cases where Planned Parenthood staffers did not appropriately follow state rules and turn in a man who was engaging in an inappropriate relationship a minor. I think that is terrible. It is beyond messed up. I would prefer if everyone followed the rules about that. I do think that each staffer was trying to act in the best interest of the minor, even if the staffer might not have been in reality. Either way, it is ridiculous to assume that all Planned Parenthoods everywhere just let minors get raped all the time like it's no big deal, because that is definitely NOT the case. I have worked with plenty of clinics that have bent over backwards to get guys arrested who were doing that kind of stuff. Planned Parenthoods and clinics, for the vast majority of cases, DO follow the rules. And rapists get caught. Which is a good thing because they might otherwise have not.
If the guy is arrested, wouldn't the parents know about the abortion in the first place?
Isn't the rape issue the reason why the staffers at PP did not report the statutory rape in the first place because they did not want the parents to know to begin with?
Or that this girl, who could have died, and just went through something terribly traumatic, didn't have to go through that.
She didn't. But she would not have gone to the clinic if she knew that her "boyfriend" would have gotten into trouble.
She could have just had a regular, safe abortion.
And killed her unborn child.
It wouldn't have been the horrifying experience of shoving a pencil into your own uterus and then becoming violently ill and having to have your boyfriend who is not a doctor deliver your dead baby for you and then take it and bury it in a ditch
Who says it wouldn't have been. Lots of women have been traumatized by abortion.
See, people assume that thirteen-year-olds are mentally and emotionally equipped to make these decisions. She needed some kind of advocate. A thirteen-year-old doesn't know what's good for her-- obviously.
The fact she had to go through that is so fucked up.
She didn't. She didn't have to stick a pencil up her crotch. She didn't have to do anything. Just because a girl is desperate doesn't mean she had to have done it.
In all likelihood, she didn't know what else to do. She needed guidance. From her parents.
And I must concur with this:
Also -- if anyone stumbled upon this page by googling the story of the girl who used the pencil, and is thinking of using a pencil or anything to self abort. PLEASE DO NOT DO IT. Self aborting is very dangerous and often leads to at minimum serious complications and even death.
But I will add:
Don't have an abortion. Don't kill the unborn child within you. You can give birth.
Check out Birthright.org (USA and Canada).
Take something bad and make it into something good. CHOOSE LIFE for your unborn child. You will not regret it.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Sarah Palin to Meet Lady Thatcher
Controversial US politician Sarah Palin could soon be on her way to Britain to boost her hopes of challenging Barack Obama in the 2012 US presidential election.
Her representatives approached Margaret Thatcher to ask for a meeting as part of a bid to enhance her claim to be the ‘heir to Ronald Reagan’ and prepare to challenge Mr Obama.
I'm very intrigued by this visit.
It would also pose a delicate diplomatic protocol dilemma for the Prime Minister, who is trying to defuse an acrimonious confrontation with Mr Obama over the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
I honestly don't see the problem. A private citizen visits Lady Thatcher. What is the controversy.
One source said: ‘A meeting with Margaret Thatcher would be an enormous publicity coup for Sarah Palin. Thatcher is by far the biggest political name in US politics, much bigger than Blair.
A meeting by itself isn't going to do much to repair her image as someone who doesn't know a lot about foreign affairs. It's all well and good to talk to Lady Thatcher. It might be even better if she could meet with foreign ministers of different countries.
Reminder about the Comments
Just a reminder about the comments rules.
I try to keep things reasonably civil here.
The number one rule of the combox is this:
Don't attack other posters.
You can criticize ideas and behaviour as you seem them in the combox.
But nasty personal digs are not allowed here. People are free to give their opinion without having to worry about getting defensive about things that have nothing to do with the discussion.
And, here's a rule of thumb to remember about the comments:
If you call any other commenter by a derogatory NOUN, your comment does not get published. It is entirely irrelevant whether the commenter deserves the label or not.
It's a shame to have to censor really good comments because of this kind of personal attack.
I used this rule when I ran a message board. And I found that it was an excellent rule, because I find that when the discussion deteriorates to the point of comments like "You're a ----" that's when things get personal and people get defensive.
I find that using verbs and adjectives work much better, especially when they're directed to what is being done in the combox.
The other rules are kind of self-evident. But I just wanted to refresh people's memories about this so that we can keep the discussion civil and focus on the subject matter at hand. Posters aren't above criticism, but I want the criticism to not be mean. I want everyone to be able to participate without worrying about personal attacks. It's so important to me that people be able to comment...especially since it tells me who's reading :D
I try to keep things reasonably civil here.
The number one rule of the combox is this:
Don't attack other posters.
You can criticize ideas and behaviour as you seem them in the combox.
But nasty personal digs are not allowed here. People are free to give their opinion without having to worry about getting defensive about things that have nothing to do with the discussion.
And, here's a rule of thumb to remember about the comments:
If you call any other commenter by a derogatory NOUN, your comment does not get published. It is entirely irrelevant whether the commenter deserves the label or not.
It's a shame to have to censor really good comments because of this kind of personal attack.
I used this rule when I ran a message board. And I found that it was an excellent rule, because I find that when the discussion deteriorates to the point of comments like "You're a ----" that's when things get personal and people get defensive.
I find that using verbs and adjectives work much better, especially when they're directed to what is being done in the combox.
The other rules are kind of self-evident. But I just wanted to refresh people's memories about this so that we can keep the discussion civil and focus on the subject matter at hand. Posters aren't above criticism, but I want the criticism to not be mean. I want everyone to be able to participate without worrying about personal attacks. It's so important to me that people be able to comment...especially since it tells me who's reading :D
Friday, June 11, 2010
Demons have personalities
Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International has published a new book on exorcism entitled Exorcism and the Church Militant. Here is a brief passage from the book relating to something I did not know-- that demons have personalities.
Demons have personalities just as any human being has a personality. They are, after all, persons, except that they do not have bodies. We can know demonic personalities, and we can engage them in a battle precisely because they are personal beings, not impersonal forces of evil. This always becomes clear in situations where the demon uses the voice of the possessed individual to speak to the exorcist. The voice is the same as that of the human victim, but the personality behind the voice is different.
Each demon's personality is related somehow, mysteriously, to his function. A demon of anger will speak, well, angrily. Demons of pride will insult and mockingly laugh at the exorcist and blaspheme the things of God. I once heard a demon of bigotry shout out obscene remarks about minorities and other races; a demon of retaliation once yelled at me vainly, "You'll pay for this!" A demon of profanity used strings of curse words; and most curious of all, a demon of greed once asked me, "What's your price" (i.e., to stop the exorcism)?
It is important to discern the personalities of the stronger demons carefully in an exorcism. Their particular concerns, their relationship with the victim, their phobias and hatreds will give the priest a good sense of what their "function" is and how then to attack them most effectively. . . .
An interesting admission from Britain's top poor-choicer
From Ann Furedi, the head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service:
And that's what sidewalk counsellors do. They talk to women and ask them if abortion is what they really want...and guess what... a lot of women DON'T want abortion.
Every clinic, every week, sees women who are adamant that an abortion is their only option, until the appointment is made, the theatre is prepared and they have the capacity to decide whether it is truly what they want. Then, the wanted end to the pregnancy becomes unwanted.
And that's what sidewalk counsellors do. They talk to women and ask them if abortion is what they really want...and guess what... a lot of women DON'T want abortion.
Of all the dumb arguments against fetal rights
Shayna at Abortion Gang writes:
Did you ever notice that when leftists lack arguments, they question sincerity. Because that's all they got left.
If we really wanted to make a fetus a dependent, all you'd need is a doctor's note saying you're pregnant. It's already done in Canada to get maternity leave in the last month of pregnancy.
Whoa, that's some obstacle to overcome.
Although we could make a fetus into a tax exemption, in practical terms, it might not be worth it. An unborn child only remains so for nine months. Perhaps in the US you could get a tax credit for the medical expenses incurred during pregnancy-- there's a nice idea. In Canada, we have state-sponsored healthcare and we get a baby bonus so that wouldn't be feasible.
The fetus is a human being. Our society has the moral obligation to recognize the humanity of the unborn child and his equal dignity. Issues about tax credits are secondary. Some people would just do away with income tax and returns altogether.
Did you know that a child, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code is one that is born alive? There is no exemption provided for a stillborn baby, or for a fetus as of December 31. Perhaps this is another tax change that the anti choice supporters would like to see enacted? To the best of my knowledge though, there is no bill in any state or in prepartion to be put before the federal government to create an exemption for an unborn fetus. How would such a tax break work anyway? Would you have to attach a pregnancy test to your tax return?
(...)
Hmm… doesn’t sound like it’s too feasible then to call a fetus the same thing as a child – and the fact that the anti-choicers out there haven’t pushed to incentivize women’s uteruses with an exemption the same as you receive for a child tells me that they know it.
Did you ever notice that when leftists lack arguments, they question sincerity. Because that's all they got left.
If we really wanted to make a fetus a dependent, all you'd need is a doctor's note saying you're pregnant. It's already done in Canada to get maternity leave in the last month of pregnancy.
Whoa, that's some obstacle to overcome.
Although we could make a fetus into a tax exemption, in practical terms, it might not be worth it. An unborn child only remains so for nine months. Perhaps in the US you could get a tax credit for the medical expenses incurred during pregnancy-- there's a nice idea. In Canada, we have state-sponsored healthcare and we get a baby bonus so that wouldn't be feasible.
The fetus is a human being. Our society has the moral obligation to recognize the humanity of the unborn child and his equal dignity. Issues about tax credits are secondary. Some people would just do away with income tax and returns altogether.
From the "you gotta to be kidding file" ...
Baby Liposuction
Embarrassing baby rolls???
UPDATE
As my commenters were nice enough to point out, it was satire. I was a little shocked at the premise and didn't check it out completely.
It's not like it couldn't exist.
Dr. Jeffery has perfected baby liposuction to an art and can sculpt and contour your baby's body to get rid of those unsightly and embarrassing baby rolls.
Embarrassing baby rolls???
UPDATE
As my commenters were nice enough to point out, it was satire. I was a little shocked at the premise and didn't check it out completely.
It's not like it couldn't exist.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Why is this even controversial?
Jesus Ultrasound Poster Fuels U.K. Abortion Uproar
It's a representation of Jesus. Wasn't he a fetus at some point? What is the big deal?
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Abortion makes a virtue out of facilitating stupidity
I've often noticed that abortion supporters don't judge people's stupid moves, and then try to facilitate it, even if anyone with an ounce of sense can see it's wrong.
A woman sticks a coathanger up her crotch, nobody points out how stupid that is.
Well it's sheer desperation! Shouldn't desperate women be helped.
Oh certainly they should be helped. They should be helped with measures that are sane and rational.
Stupid acts safer should not be the basis of public social policy.
It's like what if desperate people broke store windows to get what they needed.
Does that mean we should legalize theft?
Of course not.
Breaking store windows and stealing is stupid.
If people are in need, there should be a rational and concerted effort to assist them.
Not an attempt to make a virtue of their facilitating their stupidity.
But this is what Revolutionary Vagina does in discussing the case of the thirteen-year-old girl who self-aborted.
She argues against parental consent laws. Of course, a parent has the RIGHT to know what's going on, medically, with their kids. But let's make a virtue out of facilitating stupidity. The girl was too scared and immature to tell her mom or dad, or another official, so let's make sure that that's the policy every where.
Stupidity will always cause people to kill themselves and commit other unfortunate acts. We should not take people's stupidity and just decide to make it safer. That's bad public policy. If a girl decides she doesn't want to tell her parents about her relationship with a thirty-year-old guy, we shouldn't try to make her stupidity safer.
I know this sounds mean, but it's reality folks. We can't base social policy on emotion alone.
A woman sticks a coathanger up her crotch, nobody points out how stupid that is.
Well it's sheer desperation! Shouldn't desperate women be helped.
Oh certainly they should be helped. They should be helped with measures that are sane and rational.
Stupid acts safer should not be the basis of public social policy.
It's like what if desperate people broke store windows to get what they needed.
Does that mean we should legalize theft?
Of course not.
Breaking store windows and stealing is stupid.
If people are in need, there should be a rational and concerted effort to assist them.
Not an attempt to make a virtue of their facilitating their stupidity.
But this is what Revolutionary Vagina does in discussing the case of the thirteen-year-old girl who self-aborted.
She argues against parental consent laws. Of course, a parent has the RIGHT to know what's going on, medically, with their kids. But let's make a virtue out of facilitating stupidity. The girl was too scared and immature to tell her mom or dad, or another official, so let's make sure that that's the policy every where.
Stupidity will always cause people to kill themselves and commit other unfortunate acts. We should not take people's stupidity and just decide to make it safer. That's bad public policy. If a girl decides she doesn't want to tell her parents about her relationship with a thirty-year-old guy, we shouldn't try to make her stupidity safer.
I know this sounds mean, but it's reality folks. We can't base social policy on emotion alone.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Reproductive Justice-- Turning Kids into Goods
MercatorNet published an interview with Elizabeth Marquardt, who conducted a study of adult children of sperm donors. In answer to a question of about every one of these children being "wanted children", as per the feminist slogan:
And I know some people will glibly look at the issue and say "who cares"-- if I weren't born, I wouldn't know any different.
As if their own personal existence had so little meaning. The nihilism of it all.
This is one of themes that comes through -- people’s sense that they are a product made to suit their mother’s wishes rather than a natural happening. In the normal course of events parents have some control about whether you are born, especially today, but reproductive technology has brought that to a new level of control.
The questions these donor conceived young adults grapple with speak to what it means when children are not seen as gifts from beyond to the world but exist because they were birthed through the will of their mothers. The human will of one person, your mother, is the reason why you exist. She could have easily aborted you, chosen not to have you, but she did, so, you made it, barely; you slipped though. Rather than the idea that we are all here because of some surging life force more powerful than anyone can understand and that some people call God.
And I know some people will glibly look at the issue and say "who cares"-- if I weren't born, I wouldn't know any different.
As if their own personal existence had so little meaning. The nihilism of it all.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Potty discrimination
There aren't enough toilets at public venues for women. Oh the horror!
File a human rights complaint.
(Wait...don't... that might actually be ruled on.)
I'm tired of every gender-based inconvenience being labelled "discrimination".
Just because the people who designed public venues didn't think of women's bathroom habits during the blueprint stage, it doesn't mean they were deliberately trying to exclude women from going pee.
Bad design? I think so. It doesn't make sense to design your venue so that when the next period, quarter or act starts, women are still lined up in the bathroom.
But it's not a human rights violation.
Just because people aren't sometimes mindful of a group, it doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to make their lives hard and it doesn't make them "oppressors".
I wish we would save words like "discrimination" for scenarios where the gravity of the situation demanded it. There's a big difference between not being hired because of your gender, and having to wait an extra ten minutes to go pee.
PS: I'm still feeling sick.
File a human rights complaint.
(Wait...don't... that might actually be ruled on.)
I'm tired of every gender-based inconvenience being labelled "discrimination".
Just because the people who designed public venues didn't think of women's bathroom habits during the blueprint stage, it doesn't mean they were deliberately trying to exclude women from going pee.
Bad design? I think so. It doesn't make sense to design your venue so that when the next period, quarter or act starts, women are still lined up in the bathroom.
But it's not a human rights violation.
Just because people aren't sometimes mindful of a group, it doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to make their lives hard and it doesn't make them "oppressors".
I wish we would save words like "discrimination" for scenarios where the gravity of the situation demanded it. There's a big difference between not being hired because of your gender, and having to wait an extra ten minutes to go pee.
PS: I'm still feeling sick.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Researchers Asked to Hide Scientific Debate over Maternal Deaths
People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing:
Doesn't it then make their information suspect? If people can't examine how they came to their conclusions, doesn't that undermine the scientific process?
Or is politics the only thing that matters?
NEW YORK, June 3, 2010 (C-FAM) - At a meeting on maternal and child health research in Washington last week, United Nations (UN) staff and abortion advocates told scientists they should “harmonize” their findings or discuss them “in a locked room” so that the press could not report maternal death numbers that conflicted with the ones they use to lobby policy makers and major international donors.
Doesn't it then make their information suspect? If people can't examine how they came to their conclusions, doesn't that undermine the scientific process?
Or is politics the only thing that matters?
"Real" Sex Ed
They should hand out this book to girls when they're sixteen and make them memorize it:
If love is blind, "marriage is like a trip to the optometrist's office," warns an 81-year-old priest from New Jersey in a new book for women designed to help them evaluate whether the man they're dating is marriage material. Up front, Father Pat Connor addresses those who might question his authority to speak on the topic. "You might be thinking, 'He's a priest. He's never been married,' and in that you would be correct." But, he goes on, "for over 50 years I have had the privilege of speaking with young women on the subject of whom not to marry. These women have opened their hearts and minds while bringing me their questions." Questions such as: "Is money really important in a marriage?" "Yes. Yes. Yes, to that one," he writes in Whom Not to Marry: Time-Tested Advice From a Higher Authority.
Update
Blogging may continue to be uneven.
In this household, we can't go a week without someone being sick.
Today I have a really bad sore throat. It's so bad I have trouble eating. It's really affecting my day.
Yes, I went to the doctor. I have a prescription, but it makes me sleepy so I only use it when I'm able to go to sleep.
In the meanwhile...read the sidebar :)
In this household, we can't go a week without someone being sick.
Today I have a really bad sore throat. It's so bad I have trouble eating. It's really affecting my day.
Yes, I went to the doctor. I have a prescription, but it makes me sleepy so I only use it when I'm able to go to sleep.
In the meanwhile...read the sidebar :)
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Poor-Choicer Says: So What If I Call it a Baby?
Says KushieIsMoon, a so-called "pro-choice Christian", well-known for her Twitter abortion debates:
Yeah, so, who cares if the fetus is called a baby...and the fetus is about to die...by someone else's hand?
There is absolutely, positively, no logical ramification to calling a fetus a baby...it in no way implies that it is justified to kill a equal human being beloved by God, who was entrusted to a mother's care.
No ramifications whatsoever.
I hate that I have to guard my speech. I hate that I have to turn conversations onto random tangents over word use. But if I don’t do these things, antichoicers will run away with my words and ignore anything I say after that.
Well you know what? I’m tired of letting antis decide what I do or do not say.
So what if a woman calls a fetus a baby? So what if I follow her lead and say the word baby too? I shouldn’t refrain from using words that the woman is most comfortable with. If after her abortion she feels that her baby died and became an angel, then why can’t I agree with her on that?
Yeah, so, who cares if the fetus is called a baby...and the fetus is about to die...by someone else's hand?
There is absolutely, positively, no logical ramification to calling a fetus a baby...it in no way implies that it is justified to kill a equal human being beloved by God, who was entrusted to a mother's care.
No ramifications whatsoever.
VIDEO: March for Life in Bordeaux, France
Sure, you may not be able to understand the speech at the beginning, but the images of the March are kinda neat.
They obviously ate their bowl of Frosted Flakes that morning...
They obviously ate their bowl of Frosted Flakes that morning...
Pro-life Bus Ads in Regina Spark Controversy
This CBC article doesn't describe the ad. That's kind of important, don't you think?
But here's an interesting quote:
UPDATE at 11:47 PM
Lifesite has a couple of pictures of the ads.
But here's an interesting quote:
However, a March 2009 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on political ads on buses found that limits on advertising violated the right to free speech.
"This is something the community is going to have to get used to because there isn't a lot we can do about it," Jeff Bohach, a City of Regina spokesman, told CBC News.
UPDATE at 11:47 PM
Lifesite has a couple of pictures of the ads.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Hedy Fry Turns Down Abortion Debate
For Immediate Release:
Calgary. June 1, 2010. Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre, has rejected an opportunity to debate abortion with a former patient she treated in-utero.
Last month, Member of Parliament Dr. Hedy Fry was reported in a CBC article as saying she was ready to debate abortion with anyone. When one of her former patients, international pro-life speaker Stephanie Gray, took her up on her offer, Dr. Fry declined, as can be heard on a voicemail left for Gray by one of Fry's staff (listen to the voicemail here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdD7VPhBc7A ).
"It's disappointing that a member of parliament who has been so vocal in support of abortion won't publicly defend her views in a forum where they will be challenged," said Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Gray pointed out that it’s not likely abortion will be debated in the House any time soon given the political hot potato the topic is. Gray continued: "If Dr. Fry is so confident that she's correct, why not air her views against mine? Those on the side of truth should have nothing to fear. I don't. I welcome the opportunity to engage her or any abortion advocate in examining the issue."
Gray, through CCBR, has formally debated abortion advocates since 2002, which include Dr. Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo philosophy professor and recipient of the Order of Canada, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, and Elizabeth Cavendish of NARAL Pro-Choice America. More of Gray's debate background can be viewed here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/PDF/Gray_Curriculum_Vitae.pdf
Related
Dr. Fry said she is ready to debate anyone in the House.
Are any pro-life MP's willing to take up the cause?
Calgary. June 1, 2010. Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre, has rejected an opportunity to debate abortion with a former patient she treated in-utero.
Last month, Member of Parliament Dr. Hedy Fry was reported in a CBC article as saying she was ready to debate abortion with anyone. When one of her former patients, international pro-life speaker Stephanie Gray, took her up on her offer, Dr. Fry declined, as can be heard on a voicemail left for Gray by one of Fry's staff (listen to the voicemail here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdD7VPhBc7A ).
"It's disappointing that a member of parliament who has been so vocal in support of abortion won't publicly defend her views in a forum where they will be challenged," said Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Gray pointed out that it’s not likely abortion will be debated in the House any time soon given the political hot potato the topic is. Gray continued: "If Dr. Fry is so confident that she's correct, why not air her views against mine? Those on the side of truth should have nothing to fear. I don't. I welcome the opportunity to engage her or any abortion advocate in examining the issue."
Gray, through CCBR, has formally debated abortion advocates since 2002, which include Dr. Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo philosophy professor and recipient of the Order of Canada, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, and Elizabeth Cavendish of NARAL Pro-Choice America. More of Gray's debate background can be viewed here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/PDF/Gray_Curriculum_Vitae.pdf
Related
Dr. Fry said she is ready to debate anyone in the House.
Are any pro-life MP's willing to take up the cause?
Islamic Scholar Issues Fatwa Against Terrorism
I don't know how much this will effect anything, but always happy to promote Muslim voices against terrorism:
I have been compelled to issue a fatwa - a comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism - because of what has been happening in Pakistan over the past year. Terrorists are bombing mosques during Friday prayers, they are burning schools, killing women. They are digging bodies out of graves, cutting off their heads and hanging the bodies from trees.
My 600-page fatwa is based on all four schools of jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali and Maliki, and the Shia school of Jafari. I have consulted hundreds of classical Islamic texts, the scholars, fiqh and the Hadith. The main theme is this: any act of terrorism such as suicide bombing cannot be justified in any way. There are no conditions, no pretexts or exemptions. It is condemned by the Quran and the Sunna.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)