Corresponding with the beginning of the liturgical year.
This is the first I've heard of this.
I didn't see anything regarding this on any Canadian website.
Shouldn't we be taking this up?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Liberals Chastise Conservatives for Fiscal Mismanagement
I think the Liberals have some nerve putting out a communiqué like this.
The Liberals are trying to position themselves as fiscally responsible by shedding light on the Conservatives' spending record.
And they have a case.
However, what is left unsaid is how the Liberals would solve the problem.
I would like to see the Conservatives use this deficit as an opportunity to cut government departments.
But the Liberals use the ploy of acting fiscally conservative because their (hidden?) agenda is to expand government.
From a statist point of view, it makes sense to balance the budget. You don't want to be so bogged down in debt that you have to cut your beloved social programs.
But if you don't cut social programs, what else is left.
Raise taxes. And you can be certain that that's what will happen if the Liberals get elected. (Not that I'm THAT worried about it, at this point).
Look at Dalton McGuinty in Ontario. After he promised not to raise taxes, he hasn't stopped taxing us.
Even if the Liberals cut programs to balance the budget at this point in time, they will balance the budget with the view of creating more. Eventually they will have to raise taxes to finance their scheme.
And eventually get back into debt. At which point they will balance the budget. By cutting programs and (probably) raising taxes...
Statism is a vicious financial circle.
The Liberals are trying to position themselves as fiscally responsible by shedding light on the Conservatives' spending record.
And they have a case.
However, what is left unsaid is how the Liberals would solve the problem.
I would like to see the Conservatives use this deficit as an opportunity to cut government departments.
But the Liberals use the ploy of acting fiscally conservative because their (hidden?) agenda is to expand government.
From a statist point of view, it makes sense to balance the budget. You don't want to be so bogged down in debt that you have to cut your beloved social programs.
But if you don't cut social programs, what else is left.
Raise taxes. And you can be certain that that's what will happen if the Liberals get elected. (Not that I'm THAT worried about it, at this point).
Look at Dalton McGuinty in Ontario. After he promised not to raise taxes, he hasn't stopped taxing us.
Even if the Liberals cut programs to balance the budget at this point in time, they will balance the budget with the view of creating more. Eventually they will have to raise taxes to finance their scheme.
And eventually get back into debt. At which point they will balance the budget. By cutting programs and (probably) raising taxes...
Statism is a vicious financial circle.
Attitudes of pregnant women regarding termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality.
Summary of results from an abstract of a Greek study:
* A total of 533 women completed the questionnaire.
The percentages represent the proportion of women willing to terminate, followed by the stated reason.
* 86% would terminate the pregnancy in case of lethal fetal anomaly
* 77.8% for anomaly causing developmental delay
* 65.9% for anomaly causing physical handicap
* 45.2% anomaly causing disfigurement
* 64.7% would request late termination owing to severe anomaly (after 24 weeks)
* A total of 533 women completed the questionnaire.
The percentages represent the proportion of women willing to terminate, followed by the stated reason.
* 86% would terminate the pregnancy in case of lethal fetal anomaly
* 77.8% for anomaly causing developmental delay
* 65.9% for anomaly causing physical handicap
* 45.2% anomaly causing disfigurement
* 64.7% would request late termination owing to severe anomaly (after 24 weeks)
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
VIDEO: Are tests biased against students who don't give a s*** (humour)
Lots of coarse language in this one. But the parody is excellent!
In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A ***?
In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A ***?
Midwife Who Saved Hundreds of Newborn Babies from Nazis to be Honored
A heartwarming story.
Here she is, in the midst of death and destruction, saving the lives of babies. Did she buckle under the threat of Nazis? Did she try to save her own skin?
No. She tried to save the babies.
A true saint and an inspiration for the pro-life cause.
I remember reading about her elsewhere. They had people designated to kill the babies. They'd stick the babies in a barrel of water and drown them. There was also an abortionist (she happended to be a Jewish woman) who offered to do abortions, even at eight or nine months.
Here she is, in the midst of death and destruction, saving the lives of babies. Did she buckle under the threat of Nazis? Did she try to save her own skin?
No. She tried to save the babies.
A true saint and an inspiration for the pro-life cause.
I remember reading about her elsewhere. They had people designated to kill the babies. They'd stick the babies in a barrel of water and drown them. There was also an abortionist (she happended to be a Jewish woman) who offered to do abortions, even at eight or nine months.
QPIRG MEMBERS VIOLENTLY ATTACK OPT-OUT CAMPAIGN
Socialist thugs are at it again.
Quote:
Quote:
While the situation stabilized, it eventually deteriorated when Maddie Ritts (a member of QPIRG’s Board of Directors) stormed up to the Opt-Out table and proceeded to steal and violently rip several posters. Security caught several people, and a report has been filed with administration. McGill Security is still looking for Maddie Ritts, who left the scene.
Dutch abortionists using unproven methods of abortion
Says abstract of study that covers nearly all hospital-based gynecologists in the Netherlands:
Abortionists making it up as they go along? Can't be!
All hospital-based gynecologists in The Netherlands were sent a questionnaire on the termination of pregnancy with off-label drugs in the absence of treatment protocols. Response was received from 93.2% of the teaching hospitals and 87.9% of the non-teaching hospitals, thus representing practice of nearly all gynecologists working in The Netherlands. More than 40 different regimens were used for five different indications. Gynecologists embarked on a large number of different regimens of which a distressing number do not have any merits to be found in studies or guidelines illustrating that, without clear protocols or guidelines, the implementation of new medical treatments is potential haphazard and based on personal preference. Suboptimal treatment regimens will frustrate patients and doctors and deprive future patients from the most efficacious and patient friendly treatment regimes available.
Abortionists making it up as they go along? Can't be!
Nonmarital births and state abortion policies.
Another interesting abstract:
This study examines the impact of various restrictive abortion laws on nonmarital childbearing since the passage of the 1996 welfare reform bill. The empirical results find that the price of an abortion, a Medicaid funding restriction, and a waiting period law are associated with a decrease in a state's nonmarital birthrate. The negative effects of restrictive abortion laws on a state's nonmarital birthrate are found to occur in various age groups. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that restrictive abortion laws induce unmarried women to change their level of unprotected sexual activity or contraceptive behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of an unwanted nonmarital pregnancy.
This study examines the impact of various restrictive abortion laws on nonmarital childbearing since the passage of the 1996 welfare reform bill. The empirical results find that the price of an abortion, a Medicaid funding restriction, and a waiting period law are associated with a decrease in a state's nonmarital birthrate. The negative effects of restrictive abortion laws on a state's nonmarital birthrate are found to occur in various age groups. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that restrictive abortion laws induce unmarried women to change their level of unprotected sexual activity or contraceptive behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of an unwanted nonmarital pregnancy.
How commonly do US abortion patients report attempts to self-induce?
An interesting abstract:
What I want to know is: how many of them suffered irreversible harm or died? Would these providers have known about them? Hm....
It might seem paradoxical, but safe black-market abortions might make it easier to pass abortion legislation. If people think women are not going to die due to abortion legislation, it might make it easier to make a case to protect the fetus.
OBJECTIVE: This study measures the extent to which women who access clinical abortion services in the United States report having ever used misoprostol or other substances to self-induce.
STUDY DESIGN: A random sample of 107 US abortion providers was asked to distribute questionnaires to abortion patients.
RESULTS: Information was gathered from 9493 patients at 95 facilities, and weights were constructed to make the data nationally representative of all US abortion patients. Only 1.2% of women obtaining abortions report having ever used misoprostol on their own to "bring back" their period or end a pregnancy. A similarly small proportion of women, 1.4%, reported using other substances, such as vitamin C or herbs, to attempt to end a pregnancy.
CONCLUSION: Media reports of self-induced abortions using misoprostol may be exaggerated [exaggeration from the media! No! Can't be!], but further research is needed to estimate the incidence of self-induced abortion among women who do not access clinical abortion services.
What I want to know is: how many of them suffered irreversible harm or died? Would these providers have known about them? Hm....
It might seem paradoxical, but safe black-market abortions might make it easier to pass abortion legislation. If people think women are not going to die due to abortion legislation, it might make it easier to make a case to protect the fetus.
Proving once again that contraception does not stop abortion
Sixty-one per cent of French women undergoing abortion were using contraception, according to one study with a sample of over 7500 women.
I want to know what percentage of those 54% of women who were prescribed a "more effective method" would go on to have another abortion.
I want to know what percentage of those 54% of women who were prescribed a "more effective method" would go on to have another abortion.
LEAF launches website to monitor "equality rights" court cases
Will supply right-wing blog fodder for ages to come.
Example:
I have a question: why are the people homeless in the first place? I'm very curious about that answer.
I am so sick of people using the Charter as their springboard for policies they can't the population to support.
Example:
On May 26, 2010, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and four individual applicants launched a test case to challenge the failure of the federal and Ontario governments to provide adequate housing, as a breach of the Charter rights of those who are homeless or inadequately housed.You know, they might end up implementing communism through judicial activism, if this doesn't stop.
(...)
Citing international human rights treaties, the applicants are challenging the federal and provincial governments’ inaction on homelessness. The challenge is framed as a breach of Charter s. 7 (life, liberty, personal security) and s. 15 (equality).
I have a question: why are the people homeless in the first place? I'm very curious about that answer.
I am so sick of people using the Charter as their springboard for policies they can't the population to support.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Ann Coulter gives straight talk on marriage at HomoCon
I'm not keen that she was at HomoCon. But you have to hand it to the lady: she's got chutzpah
According to reports, Coulter charmed her audience of 150 at the HomoCon fundraiser for GOProud with a number of jokes, admitting that it must have been difficult to come out of the closet and tell their parents that they were conservatives.
But then the outspoken pundit said to her audience, “I should warn you: I've never failed to talk gays out of gay marriage."
Talking Points Memo reported that Coulter explained to the crowd that she supports marriage as the union of a man and a woman, because the institution is fundamentally about the procreation of children.
Coulter then stated frankly that keeping marriage defined and restricted to heterosexual couples does not violate homosexuals’ civil rights. She also said that same-sex “marriage” was “foisted on Americans by the courts."
Marriage, she said, “is not a civil right — you’re not black.”
Coulter wryly commented that the well-moneyed homosexual community hardly looked like an oppressed group – especially when compared to other minorities that have had a long history of social oppression.
"Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, 'Why can't we be oppressed like that?'" said Coulter.
During a question and answer session with GOProud chairman Chris Barron, Coulter appeared to agree that politicians who support traditional marriage, but embrace no-fault divorce, are engaging in hypocrisy, and that pro-marriage politicians should advocate the repeal of no-fault divorce laws.
Pro-life: It's not just about rights, but responsibilities
The Abortion Gang comments on Amendment 62 in Colorado:
Abortion is not an inalienable right. There is no such thing as an inalienable right to kill.
There is, however, a right to life.
And there is responsibility.
The responsibility not to kill, especially not to kill one's offspring.
Let's see now.
If the woman does not exercise her "bodily autonomy", her pregnancy will be over in nine months.
If the fetus does not have the right to life, he will be dead forever.
I think it's a no-brainer.
Not to mention that the woman is responsible for the life of her offspring.
RESPONSIBILITY?
"UNFAIR! SLAVERY! OPPRESSION!" Cry feminists.
What-- being responsible for protecting life is oppression.
Give me a darn break.
A responsibility is not oppression.
What responsibility does it entail. Get ready for it:
Do nothing.
That's right! Just stay pregnant for nine months and do nothing.
When the baby comes, if you still don't want to be a mom, you can place the baby for adoption.
Now, some feminists would counter that that's forced pregnancy. Forcing a woman to be a carrier, an incubator, a passive agent.
Well, here's some news to you feminists: when you're a moral agent, that not only entails moral rights, but moral responsibilities.
There is such a thing as a moral responsibility to the fetus.
The other reality is that when you choose the actions, you choose the consequences that are intrinsic to that action.
Nobody chooses an accident. That's what that is: an unexpected consequence to your action. Like if you walk outside and get hit, that was unforeseeable. Nobody asks to get hit by a car when they're strolling around.
But, if you start jaywalking on the highway, where cars are moving fast, a foreseeable consequence is getting hit.
That's what is meant by: you choose the action, you choose the consequences.
Did you ever notice that poor-choicers ALWAYS question motives based on nothing more than a false conclusion derived from pro-life behaviour.
Like, if pro-lifers support war, the death penalty or oppose organ donation, it's because they're not really sincere about their values.
Never mind that these issues involve different acts and therefore different factors.
If your country is invaded, will you fight the invader? Well of course!
If your country's ally is invaded, aren't you going to support armed intervention? Well of course!
This is a different question that the issue of whether a fetus has the right to life.
Nobody denies human beings have the right to life.
The issue is when can a human being deliberately kill?
When it comes to innocent life, pro-lifers are categorical: never.
So when it comes to shooting enemy non-combatants or executing convicted murderers, no problem.
But it's too hard to stop and think about whether what one is saying is logically consistent. It's just easier to engage in superficial rhetoric. If you support killing of the guilty, well, that means you MUST support the killing of the innocent-- otherwise you're a hypocrite, right?
That's how the left thinks.
It's just easier to engage in this intellectual shortcuts and smear the opposition.
If amendment 62 is passed, we will still have a case of the inalienable rights of a woman versus the inalienable rights of the fetus.
Abortion is not an inalienable right. There is no such thing as an inalienable right to kill.
There is, however, a right to life.
And there is responsibility.
The responsibility not to kill, especially not to kill one's offspring.
And since it’s the fetus that requires the use of the woman’s body to live, the woman should have the right to maintain her bodily autonomy.
Let's see now.
If the woman does not exercise her "bodily autonomy", her pregnancy will be over in nine months.
If the fetus does not have the right to life, he will be dead forever.
I think it's a no-brainer.
Not to mention that the woman is responsible for the life of her offspring.
RESPONSIBILITY?
"UNFAIR! SLAVERY! OPPRESSION!" Cry feminists.
What-- being responsible for protecting life is oppression.
Give me a darn break.
A responsibility is not oppression.
What responsibility does it entail. Get ready for it:
Do nothing.
That's right! Just stay pregnant for nine months and do nothing.
When the baby comes, if you still don't want to be a mom, you can place the baby for adoption.
Now, some feminists would counter that that's forced pregnancy. Forcing a woman to be a carrier, an incubator, a passive agent.
Well, here's some news to you feminists: when you're a moral agent, that not only entails moral rights, but moral responsibilities.
There is such a thing as a moral responsibility to the fetus.
The other reality is that when you choose the actions, you choose the consequences that are intrinsic to that action.
Nobody chooses an accident. That's what that is: an unexpected consequence to your action. Like if you walk outside and get hit, that was unforeseeable. Nobody asks to get hit by a car when they're strolling around.
But, if you start jaywalking on the highway, where cars are moving fast, a foreseeable consequence is getting hit.
That's what is meant by: you choose the action, you choose the consequences.
The fact that anti-choicers aren’t fighting the rights of parents to refuse to give blood, bone marrow, organs, etc to save the life of their child once it’s born, is a strong indicator that it’s really not about the life of the child for them, but rather punishing women for being sexually active.
Did you ever notice that poor-choicers ALWAYS question motives based on nothing more than a false conclusion derived from pro-life behaviour.
Like, if pro-lifers support war, the death penalty or oppose organ donation, it's because they're not really sincere about their values.
Never mind that these issues involve different acts and therefore different factors.
If your country is invaded, will you fight the invader? Well of course!
If your country's ally is invaded, aren't you going to support armed intervention? Well of course!
This is a different question that the issue of whether a fetus has the right to life.
Nobody denies human beings have the right to life.
The issue is when can a human being deliberately kill?
When it comes to innocent life, pro-lifers are categorical: never.
So when it comes to shooting enemy non-combatants or executing convicted murderers, no problem.
But it's too hard to stop and think about whether what one is saying is logically consistent. It's just easier to engage in superficial rhetoric. If you support killing of the guilty, well, that means you MUST support the killing of the innocent-- otherwise you're a hypocrite, right?
That's how the left thinks.
It's just easier to engage in this intellectual shortcuts and smear the opposition.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Feminist says it's time to play offense
Why oh why are feminists always on the defensive about abortion?
It's like they can't figure it out.
Why do you suppose the public is not open to the pro-choice argument?
Answer: because abortion kills human beings.
In the age before widespread ultrasound,it was possible to counter that belief.
Not any more.
Or maybe because you have what you want, which is legal abortion. Let sleeping dogs lie, and all that.
Which will be countered by images of bloody fetus.
You can't escape the bloody fetus, feminists. Try as you might, abortion will always be seen as killing. Sure, most people don't believe in the equality of the fetus. But they sure as heck don't believe in an unfettered right to killing a human being, even one inside your uterus.
It's like they can't figure it out.
While pro-choice groups spend a lot of time playing defense, perhaps it’s time to play offense? We do need to perhaps spend some time convincing the public to be more pro-choice, not just with the threat that access is going away but that “choice” with all those types of barriers should matter to all women.
Why do you suppose the public is not open to the pro-choice argument?
Answer: because abortion kills human beings.
In the age before widespread ultrasound,it was possible to counter that belief.
Not any more.
It’s been said that the reason activists don’t spend money on advertising is because, unlike the anti-choice side, we’re too busy actually helping women.
Or maybe because you have what you want, which is legal abortion. Let sleeping dogs lie, and all that.
While “abortion-rights brand building” may seem to be a waste of resources when there are so many fires to put out, perhaps it’s time for our side to put up bus ads and billboards.
Which will be countered by images of bloody fetus.
You can't escape the bloody fetus, feminists. Try as you might, abortion will always be seen as killing. Sure, most people don't believe in the equality of the fetus. But they sure as heck don't believe in an unfettered right to killing a human being, even one inside your uterus.
Rome: we have a problem
Lysiane Gagnon:
And the Catholic bishops of Quebec think THAT'S OKAY.
Luckily Cardinal Ouellet will have a say in picking the successors. Quite a few are destined to retire in the next couple of years.
I pray that the people he chooses will be vocal in defending the right to life. And ALL Catholic doctrines.
Bishops not speaking up and Catholics thinking abortion is okay. Think there's a link?
In any case, there certainly was no need to launch such an attack on a man who doesn’t represent a threat to the partisans of free choice. Cardinal Ouellet is already marginalized. He is the only vocal anti-abortion supporter in the Quebec Catholic hierarchy (the others cautiously refrain from raising the abortion issue)
And the Catholic bishops of Quebec think THAT'S OKAY.
Luckily Cardinal Ouellet will have a say in picking the successors. Quite a few are destined to retire in the next couple of years.
I pray that the people he chooses will be vocal in defending the right to life. And ALL Catholic doctrines.
And the large majority of practising Catholics are in favour of access to abortion, at least during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Bishops not speaking up and Catholics thinking abortion is okay. Think there's a link?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Feminist launches 4000 Years for Choice Campaign
What a hoot.
Wait a minute: hasn't the patriarchy always controlled women's reproduction, and feminism was a response for that?
Is this an Orwellian manipulation of history or what?
And have you noted how this campaign equates abortion with choice?
From the About page:
Look folks, no matter how many icons, symbols and images you create, they will ALWAYS be superimposed on the image of a dead fetus. Because that's always the result. So no matter what kind of symbols of "empowerment" are created, they are always created against the backdrop of death and destruction. There's no evading it. Abortion means death.
Images of dead women? Really? Haven't seen too many of those. If anything, they tend to be abstract statistics. The person who has the goods on women who died from abortion is pro-lifer Christina Dunigan from Real Choice.
But "reproductive control" by women IS a recent idea!
And that's why feminists revolted.
I mean are these women so bloody dead to history that they don't know? The patriarchy has exploited women for millennia, and always had the upper hand, and that's why feminism emerged (among other reasons).
Look, pointing to some witch's brew or some Greek medical textbook does not prove that the ideology of "choice" has existed for the last 4000 years. It proves that ABORTION has always existed (which no one denies). Female power? No, sorry. Has not always existed. In fact, if it was ever exercised, it was in isolated cases; it was not a social phenomenon.
If it's always existed, what did feminists revolt against?
This campaign is so damned laughable.
I'm rubbing my hands at this one.
Are they stupid or something? Reclaim the space-- how? With MORE protests. Yeah, just what a potential abortion patient wants. More people crowding her as she enters the clinic.
I propose we counter with a campaign of our own: a baseball-card type postcard collection of all the dirty, horrid clinics that operate or have been closed down in the last ten years. On the front would be a picture of the clinic. On the back: "Vital statistics" about the people who ran it, the women who died there and all the gross health violations.
About the creator, Heather Ault:
Ancient tradition of reproductive control? What an effing crock! How can she call herself a feminist?
I'm a little passionate about this campaign because not only is this an attack on the unborn, it's a manipulation of history, which I hate to the core, having studied it in university. This is propaganda, along the lines of the feminist crap that is typically spewed in universities.
Check out the Timeline. Another ridiculous attempt at manipulating history. For example, here she quotes Plato:
Yeah like, exposure. And the decision, of course, belonged to the FATHER.
Here's another blatant attempt at manipulation:
It doesn't ASK ANYTHING.
It is a series of instructions.
Here's the relevant passage:
Murder...that is, the taking of a life.
So we're supposed to believe St. Augustine based on bad science?
St. Augustine and EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER who wrote on the subject condemned abortion, REGARDLESS of whether the fetus was "formed" or "unformed".
When the science was established that human beings were formed at conception, the Church accepted that science. Too bad feminists don't.
Yeah, there was PENANCE. Woohoo, some celebration of choice there!
This is effing ridiculous. This is their "celebration of choice"? Three years of penance for abortion? Yeehaw, it was a sin, just a lesser one...?
Yay choice! Abortion is wrong!
Yay choice! Rape and sexual exploitation! Woohoo!
If this doesn't embarrass feminists, I don't know what would. Their ability to harbour contradictory ideas makes me think though that this might catch on. To their detriment. This could possibly be their downfall. In the age of fisking, I don't think this is going to fly.
Update September 28:
Clearly, I was late to the party on this topic. Jill Stanek had already covered it.
When Osumashi made her comment about giving exposure to crackpot, I had had some misgivings about having published blogpost.
However, now that I'm aware that it has reached a wider audience, I'm not sorry at all. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has promoted it.
I'm dumbfounded that a feminist organization like PP would eat up this tripe. Part of me thought: this is so stupid, educated feminists would never buy this. Four thousand years of choice!. Claiming the very OPPOSITE of what feminists have been saying for more decades than I've been alive. But part of me thought that it was so pro-abortion, they would eat it up. So here we are. I'm trying to tell feminists how oppressed women really were. For goodness sakes. C'est le monde en envers.
Wait a minute: hasn't the patriarchy always controlled women's reproduction, and feminism was a response for that?
Is this an Orwellian manipulation of history or what?
And have you noted how this campaign equates abortion with choice?
From the About page:
The 4000 Years for Choice project seeks to create new icons, symbols, and images about reproductive choice.
Look folks, no matter how many icons, symbols and images you create, they will ALWAYS be superimposed on the image of a dead fetus. Because that's always the result. So no matter what kind of symbols of "empowerment" are created, they are always created against the backdrop of death and destruction. There's no evading it. Abortion means death.
Since the days of Roe v Wade, the pro-choice movement has presented images of feminists, coat hangers, and dead women to represent reproductive rights. Now is the time for a broader and more dynamic visual campaign!
Images of dead women? Really? Haven't seen too many of those. If anything, they tend to be abstract statistics. The person who has the goods on women who died from abortion is pro-lifer Christina Dunigan from Real Choice.
2. Teach history! This project reframes the current abortion debate through a new lens: the ancient traditions of abortion and contraception from the past 4000 years. Most people believe that reproductive control is recent “invention” or “idea” that developed as a result of the feminist movement, political rights, or medical technology, and therefore, must be “defended” or we will return to the days of “back ally abortions.” Rather, reproductive control is inherent to all human societies and a fundamental human desire.
But "reproductive control" by women IS a recent idea!
And that's why feminists revolted.
I mean are these women so bloody dead to history that they don't know? The patriarchy has exploited women for millennia, and always had the upper hand, and that's why feminism emerged (among other reasons).
Look, pointing to some witch's brew or some Greek medical textbook does not prove that the ideology of "choice" has existed for the last 4000 years. It proves that ABORTION has always existed (which no one denies). Female power? No, sorry. Has not always existed. In fact, if it was ever exercised, it was in isolated cases; it was not a social phenomenon.
If it's always existed, what did feminists revolt against?
This campaign is so damned laughable.
3. Celebrate clinics! The 4000 Years for Choice project focuses on the most vulnerable spaces in the abortion debate: the clinics in our communities where anti-choice protesters are a daily sight, especially during the 40 Days for Life campaign. 4000 Years for Choice hopes to reclaim clinic spaces in two ways; 1) through a weekly postcard campaign to clinics, and 2) an upcoming grassroots clinic celebration campaign in Summer 2010.
I'm rubbing my hands at this one.
Are they stupid or something? Reclaim the space-- how? With MORE protests. Yeah, just what a potential abortion patient wants. More people crowding her as she enters the clinic.
I propose we counter with a campaign of our own: a baseball-card type postcard collection of all the dirty, horrid clinics that operate or have been closed down in the last ten years. On the front would be a picture of the clinic. On the back: "Vital statistics" about the people who ran it, the women who died there and all the gross health violations.
About the creator, Heather Ault:
She is passionate about creating connections between artists, historians, and the pro-choice community in order to celebrate the ancient traditions of reproductive control we continue to practice today!
Ancient tradition of reproductive control? What an effing crock! How can she call herself a feminist?
I'm a little passionate about this campaign because not only is this an attack on the unborn, it's a manipulation of history, which I hate to the core, having studied it in university. This is propaganda, along the lines of the feminist crap that is typically spewed in universities.
Check out the Timeline. Another ridiculous attempt at manipulating history. For example, here she quotes Plato:
300s BCE – The Greek philosopher Plato commented on population in the Roman Empire. He wrote, “There are many devices available. If too many children are being born, there are measures to check propagation.
Yeah like, exposure. And the decision, of course, belonged to the FATHER.
Here's another blatant attempt at manipulation:
100s – The Didache, an early Christian document, asks two questions concerning abortion: Is abortion being used to conceal the sins of fornication and adultery, and does the fetus have a rational soul from the moment of conception, or does it become an “ensouled human” at a later point?
It doesn't ASK ANYTHING.
It is a series of instructions.
Here's the relevant passage:
you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.
Murder...that is, the taking of a life.
418 – St. Augustine condemned abortion because it broke the connection between sex and procreation. However, in the Enchiridion, he wrote, “But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified.” He, and most theologians at that time, felt that abortion wasn’t homicide.
So we're supposed to believe St. Augustine based on bad science?
St. Augustine and EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER who wrote on the subject condemned abortion, REGARDLESS of whether the fetus was "formed" or "unformed".
When the science was established that human beings were formed at conception, the Church accepted that science. Too bad feminists don't.
900s – In the Irish Cannons, the penance for having intercourse with a woman was seven years and intercourse with a neighbor woman was nine to fourteen years. However, penance for “destruction of the embryo of a child in the mother’s womb” was three and one half years.
Yeah, there was PENANCE. Woohoo, some celebration of choice there!
This is effing ridiculous. This is their "celebration of choice"? Three years of penance for abortion? Yeehaw, it was a sin, just a lesser one...?
1318 – While St. Thomas Aquinas opposed abortion as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage. However, unless the fetus was “ensouled” at approximately 30 days after conception, it was not a sin because it was not a human being.
Yay choice! Abortion is wrong!
1600s – During slavery in the U.S, many African women were known to take the cottonwood plant as an abortive remedy in order to rebel against their masters and spare their children a life of misery.
Yay choice! Rape and sexual exploitation! Woohoo!
If this doesn't embarrass feminists, I don't know what would. Their ability to harbour contradictory ideas makes me think though that this might catch on. To their detriment. This could possibly be their downfall. In the age of fisking, I don't think this is going to fly.
Update September 28:
Clearly, I was late to the party on this topic. Jill Stanek had already covered it.
When Osumashi made her comment about giving exposure to crackpot, I had had some misgivings about having published blogpost.
However, now that I'm aware that it has reached a wider audience, I'm not sorry at all. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has promoted it.
I'm dumbfounded that a feminist organization like PP would eat up this tripe. Part of me thought: this is so stupid, educated feminists would never buy this. Four thousand years of choice!. Claiming the very OPPOSITE of what feminists have been saying for more decades than I've been alive. But part of me thought that it was so pro-abortion, they would eat it up. So here we are. I'm trying to tell feminists how oppressed women really were. For goodness sakes. C'est le monde en envers.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Dr. William Harrison, Defender of Abortion Rights, Dies at 75
NYT:
And if human life has to be taken, so what?
Now what in the world would make him uncomfortable? Didn't he believe in choice?
Pray for his soul.
Dr. Harrison readily admitted that he destroyed life, but denied that he killed babies. His view was that an embryo was far from being a human being with a brain.
The higher moral value to Dr. Harrison was salvaging the future of an often disadvantaged girl or woman.
And if human life has to be taken, so what?
But he drew a line at performing abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, partly, he said, because they made him uncomfortable and partly because he felt he lacked the expertise.
Now what in the world would make him uncomfortable? Didn't he believe in choice?
Pray for his soul.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Norman Barwin screwed up before
Remember the case of Norman Barwin, the IVF doc who is accused of mixing up donor sperm and cheating at marathons?
It turns out he's had at least one other lawsuit laid against him:
It turns out he's had at least one other lawsuit laid against him:
But the Moore and Slinn cases are not the first suggesting a mix-up at the Ottawa clinic. In 1994, Loree-Ann Huard and Wanda Cowton went to Dr. Barwin for artificial insemination. The following year, the lesbian couple sued Dr. Barwin for inseminating Ms. Huard with the wrong donor sperm. In 1998, they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. As part of the settlement, Ms. Huard and Ms. Cowton are forbidden to talk to the media about their case.
Being Pro-Choice vs. Being REALLY Pro-Choice
Just an interesting insight into the goings on at abortion clinics, from The Abortion Gang:
"Pro-choice" isn't just about supporting legal abortion.
I know most people THINK that.
But to the REAL pro-choice community, being pro-choice means you accept ALL abortions, without judgement, no exceptions.
So if you rightly judge that the lady who's having her 7th abortion is irresponsible, you're not truly "pro-choice".
In other words, when it comes to abortion, park your morality, facts and reason at the clinic door.
Like people who actually discover what an abortion is and what abortion does....
Maybe fighting for the fetus has some advantages. :)
Some people work at abortion clinics because they need a job. Full stop. I went out socially with some of my co-workers one evening, and they were talking about how the work we do (intake) just does not work out for some people. There are the people who think they are pro-choice but they find out they are not, of course.
"Pro-choice" isn't just about supporting legal abortion.
I know most people THINK that.
But to the REAL pro-choice community, being pro-choice means you accept ALL abortions, without judgement, no exceptions.
So if you rightly judge that the lady who's having her 7th abortion is irresponsible, you're not truly "pro-choice".
In other words, when it comes to abortion, park your morality, facts and reason at the clinic door.
But I’m starting to understand the difference between myself and the people who can’t hack it. The kind of person my co-worker was referring to is the kind of person who, when I was a part of the Wiccan community, we used to call a “fluffy bunny.” Someone whose naivete does not allow them to see the whole picture;
Like people who actually discover what an abortion is and what abortion does....
It is easy enough to say you believe that all women should have a choice, and should be respected. It is harder to focus on that lofty ideal when a very unpleasant woman is yelling at you over the phone because you cannot schedule her for an abortion until next Wednesday, and yes she will have to drive twenty minutes to get here, isn’t that terrible, sorry we couldn’t bring the doctor right to your living room, we’ll have to work on that. Some people are just assholes, and it’s easier to fight for their rights when you don’t actually have to talk to them for a living.
Maybe fighting for the fetus has some advantages. :)
Thursday, September 23, 2010
VIDEO: 40 Days for Life Ottawa 2010 Kick Off Rally
A few scenes from the 40 Days for Life Ottawa Kick Off Rally:
The Ottawa Tea Party has its own blog
Check it out.
They're also on Twitter.
There're on facebook too, but facebook is acting up right now.
They're also on Twitter.
There're on facebook too, but facebook is acting up right now.
Abortionist Randall Whitney arrested again (Eyewitness Account!)
If only there had been video: UPDATE SEPT. 24: Now there is video!
Randall walked by in handcuffs and glared at me. Although too dark to take a good photo with my cell phone, I attempted to record the event. “Are you the people responsible for this? I am going to find out who you are!” he threatened as I held my camera phone.
...
We listened to more of Randall’s fight with the arresting officers. Soon there were three police cruisers on the scene. He objected that he was with a patient. He glared at us from across the street as we tried in vain to get more pictures in the dark with our cell phones.
We heard Randall arguing with the police officers telling them that they could not arrest him because he was with a patient. The officers said only that they were required to arrest him due to a warrant and explained (as cops are wont to do) that they were only doing their jobs.
...
Randall Whitney was arrested for failure to appear in court. He may now have to remain in jail with no bond until his trial. He will be tried for a second degree felony, “Aggravated Battery upon a Pregnant Person.” If convicted, he could have his license suspended by the Florida Board of Medicine for the following reason.
VIDEO: Why I don't have mom friends (humour)
Any mom who's spent time on a mommy board will totally get this:
It's made with a website, so the intonation is a bit off, but it's still funny.
It's made with a website, so the intonation is a bit off, but it's still funny.
Canadian woman aborted DS baby at 33 weeks at Steven Brigham's clinic
Question: Did the Canadian taxpayer pay for a criminal abortion? If so, someone should answer for this.
What province was this woman from? Who is responsible for this woman being there? Was she referred? Did the officials who processed this abortion request know that this abortion was criminal?
Another case of a fetus suffering and dying in the name of feminism. Watch for the feminists to say "she must have had a really good reason to do it."
Why couldn't she just have given birth and put the baby up for adoption?
PS: I'm busy again today. If there are any bloggers out there who wouldn't mind trying to dig on this issue, it would be greatly appreciated.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
23rd Annual Life Chain to Take Place across North America on Sunday October 3, 2010
Story here.
Locations across Canada
Ottawa locations:
Bank St at Nepean St
Carling Ave at Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus
Montreal Rd at St. Laurent Blvd
Vanier Parkway at Montreal Rd
ALMONTE - Martin St at Ottawa St
KANATA - Hazeldean Rd at Eagleson Rd
KANATA - March Rd at Dunrobin Rd
NEPEAN - Merivale Rd at Meadowlands Dr
ORLEANS - St. Joseph Blvd at Orleans Blvd
OTTAWA SOUTH - Bank St at Hunt Club Rd
RUSSELL - Castor St at Concession St
PS: I'm busy tomorrow. Sorry if I don't blog much!
Locations across Canada
Ottawa locations:
Bank St at Nepean St
Carling Ave at Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus
Montreal Rd at St. Laurent Blvd
Vanier Parkway at Montreal Rd
ALMONTE - Martin St at Ottawa St
KANATA - Hazeldean Rd at Eagleson Rd
KANATA - March Rd at Dunrobin Rd
NEPEAN - Merivale Rd at Meadowlands Dr
ORLEANS - St. Joseph Blvd at Orleans Blvd
OTTAWA SOUTH - Bank St at Hunt Club Rd
RUSSELL - Castor St at Concession St
PS: I'm busy tomorrow. Sorry if I don't blog much!
Monday, September 20, 2010
You can tell abortioneers are ideologically driven
Anti-Choice Shenanigans writes:
So how do they explain this?
If economics is really the driving force, would we be gunning for black women to be having more black babies?
A far more sinister reason is, as Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell tells Rachel Maddow, that economic anxiety has caused fear and “the best way to reassert control is right in the middle of women- right in her uterus… they want middle class white women to have more white babies… and think these middle class white women are not producing of enough white babies ….
So how do they explain this?
If economics is really the driving force, would we be gunning for black women to be having more black babies?
An OB\GYN talks about her experience with abortion #prolife
Lissa Rankin:
Gee...true to who you are AND conflicted? That doesn't ring true.
H/T: NRLC
For eight years, I performed abortions on every patient in my practice who asked me to. I held their hands, wiped their tears, heard their stories, and loved them unconditionally. I knew that they never planned to wind up with unexpected pregnancies, and they needed compassion, not judgment. If my choice made one woman’s painful journey more peaceful, then it was all worth it. [And if a fetus has to die for it, so what?]
But it wasn’t easy. A few months after I started my job, I found my name on the front page of the Catholic News as the “new abortionist in town.” I prepared myself to face angry picket lines at work the next day, but praise God, they never came. I never quite felt comfortable in the skin of a doctor who aborts babies. I tried to resolve my confused conscience by extensively counseling my patients to make sure they understood all of their options, practiced smart birth control, and realized the fact that abortions are not without their consequences.
...
Now, in my office practice, I don’t do surgeries at all anymore, so I no longer perform abortions. In some ways, it’s easier this way. I don’t have to feel conflicted about how to stay true to my integrity in the face of a duty I find hard to perform. But I have no regrets about the time I spent serving my patients in that way. I would do it all over again, but I’d still struggle. Sometimes it’s not easy to stand up for what you believe in. But it’s always worth it when you know you’ve been true to who you are.
Gee...true to who you are AND conflicted? That doesn't ring true.
H/T: NRLC
One rape survivor's #prolife story
Liz says:
This story debunks this excercise in feminist self-righteousness that I recently fisked:
Before all of this happened, I was always “pro-life.” I was raised in a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools my whole life. However, when I finally took the pregnancy test that was very clearly positive, all my values and morals went out the window and I absolutely wanted the easy fix. I was for sure getting an abortion for maybe a week before I realized what the hell I was doing. I was vulnerable and miserable and scared and I felt that was my only option. Seeing everything now, I hate myself for ever even considering it.
...
Most of the pro-choice people who find out I’m a birthmom “from rape” always try
to dismiss me by saying I have it better than others. They try to tell me that my family was supportive and not all people have that, or they would say, “Just because you're strong doesn't mean everyone is.” To be honest, it's degrading to me as a woman when people make excuses of women’s lack of strength. I know a lot of women and every single one of them is strong. Every woman is strong enough to love her baby enough not to kill it. That last sentence may sound sort of harsh, but I am not a judging person -- I know the vulnerability of a crisis
situation, but the truth is the truth, and every woman has the strength to love her
baby.
This story debunks this excercise in feminist self-righteousness that I recently fisked:
Anti-choice women have a complete inability to empathize with women seeking abortions. They live in their ignorant world, believing that all women who become pregnant 'deserve' it. That is, of course, until it happens to them.
When reality is racist
NYC stops hiring firefighters amid long-running dispute over alleged entry-exam discrimination
What if the minority candidates all just sucked, meaning they didn't have the ability to pass the exam?
NEW YORK (AP) — City officials on Friday said the Fire Department of New York won't hire any firefighters until a new entry exam is created to replace one a federal judge said discriminated against minorities, which is expected to take at least a year.
A federal judge had ordered the city to choose one of five temporary methods for selecting applicants who had already passed the rejected exam as a way of adding to the department in the meantime. But the city's law department said in a letter to the court that they wouldn't select one because they all involved some sort of race-based quota.
"The hiring quotas ... are bad public policy, and we believe not justified by the law," said Corporation Counsel head Michael Cardozo.
It was the latest setback in a lengthy legal dispute with the federal government over discrimination claims at the mostly white fire department. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled in August that the exam was unfair to black and Hispanic applicants after the Justice Department sued on their behalf in 2007.
...
The judge said black and Hispanic applicants had disproportionately failed the written examinations and those who passed were placed disproportionately lower down the hiring lists than whites.
...
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on his radio program Friday morning that accusing the fire department of racism was unfair, and he spent years working with the commissioner to recruit diverse applicants.
"The bottom line is we just could never get ... we were making progress ... but we never got as diverse a group applying," he said. "And if you had a big diverse group applying, you would have diversity in the results coming out the other end.
What if the minority candidates all just sucked, meaning they didn't have the ability to pass the exam?
Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God? Yes We Do
This issue is one that really bugs me, because you'll get even faithful Catholics to say "no".
And I can see the next argument coming: that Vatican II was not "infallible."
Look at the name of the document: it's a DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION. I.E. The Council and the pope were looking to make an authoritative statement on the Catholic Faith.
Paragraph 16 of The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium)* reads, in part:
[...]But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
And I can see the next argument coming: that Vatican II was not "infallible."
Look at the name of the document: it's a DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION. I.E. The Council and the pope were looking to make an authoritative statement on the Catholic Faith.
Ottawa Election: Who NOT to vote for-- The Jim Watson Slate
On Saturday, there was an anti-Eco Tax rally at Jim Watson's Campaign Headquarters.
Debbie Jodoin, the organizer, fired off a list of candidates who are known to be Jim Watson supporters.
The reason this issue came up is that Jim Watson, at a candidate's debate, chided Larry O'Brien for asking people to vote for like-minded candidates.
This struck Debbie as rather peculiar, to say the least, given Jim's supporters.
Here are the candidates that fiscal conservatives should NOT vote for:
WARD 1 ORLEANS: FRED SHERWIN
WARD 2 INNES: RAINER BLOESS
WARD 7 BAYWARD: MARK TAYLOR
WARD 9 KNOXDALE-MERIVALE: ROD VANIER
WARD 10 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE: DIANE DEANS
WARD 11 BEACON HILL-CYRIVILLE: TIM TIERNEY
WARD 13 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE: RICHARD CANNINGS OR PETER CLARK
WARD 15 KITCHISSIPPI: CHRISTINE LEADMAN
WARD 17 CAPITAL WARD: ISABEL METCALFE
WARD 18 ALTA VISTA: PETER HUME
WARD 19 CUMBERLAND: STEVEN BLAIS
WARD 22 GLOUSTER-SOUTHGATE: STEVE DESROCHES
WARD 23 KNANTA SOUTH: PERRY SIMPSON
You can find a list of candidates here.
Debbie Jodoin, the organizer, fired off a list of candidates who are known to be Jim Watson supporters.
The reason this issue came up is that Jim Watson, at a candidate's debate, chided Larry O'Brien for asking people to vote for like-minded candidates.
This struck Debbie as rather peculiar, to say the least, given Jim's supporters.
Here are the candidates that fiscal conservatives should NOT vote for:
WARD 1 ORLEANS: FRED SHERWIN
WARD 2 INNES: RAINER BLOESS
WARD 7 BAYWARD: MARK TAYLOR
WARD 9 KNOXDALE-MERIVALE: ROD VANIER
WARD 10 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE: DIANE DEANS
WARD 11 BEACON HILL-CYRIVILLE: TIM TIERNEY
WARD 13 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE: RICHARD CANNINGS OR PETER CLARK
WARD 15 KITCHISSIPPI: CHRISTINE LEADMAN
WARD 17 CAPITAL WARD: ISABEL METCALFE
WARD 18 ALTA VISTA: PETER HUME
WARD 19 CUMBERLAND: STEVEN BLAIS
WARD 22 GLOUSTER-SOUTHGATE: STEVE DESROCHES
WARD 23 KNANTA SOUTH: PERRY SIMPSON
You can find a list of candidates here.
Sometimes Feminists Reek of Judgementalism and Self-Righteousness
NotGuilty writes:
Gee, a human being has a right to live. That's NOT a black-and-white issue?
Except for those several thousand Crisis Pregnancy Centres out there, who help women through their ordeals, getting help they can't get from other quarters...
And all those pro-life women who actually DO have an unwanted pregnancy.
Because that pesky issue of the fetus...that's just non-sense. Hey, if a fetus has a die because a woman doesn't want to be pregnant...SO WHAT?
Wait...this lady, who's never had children is trying to lecture others about the difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth...as if no pro-life woman has ever had a difficult pregnancy?
Of course we are able to separate them.
It's just that it's irrelevant.
Whether you want to be a mom or not, you don't have the right to take a human life.
If you don't want to parent, place your child up for adoption.
As if the things that drive women to seek abortions never happens to pro-life women.
You mean "you choose the actions, you choose the consequences.
Funny how a liberal would disagree with that...
Yeah. ONE HUNDRED PER CENT of pro-life women who experience unintended pregnancy abort.
As if.
The bait-and-switch.
For a pro-choicer, an anti is anyone who does not subscribe to their worldview on abortion-- and here's the important distinction-- whether or not they are pro-life.
So Hitler-- who was against abortions for Aryans, but favoured them for the untermensch-- is anti-choice, even though he's not pro-life.
But an incredible lack of empathy for the fetus. Hey, if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of choice, so what?
Except on the fetus.
It's 21st century pharasaism. I'm so good and holy-- you anti-choice sinners over there, you suck. I think the irony is lost on this woman.
More 21st century Pharisee-like thinking. I mean isn't she just so tolerant, non-judgemental and caring (except when it comes tothe fetus who must DIE during the abortion?)
Egocentric moral puffery. Clearly, humility is not an atheist value.
If limited access to abortion leads women to kill themselves in self-induced abortions, and access is limited to large numbers of women, as feminists claim then...
Where are all the dead women?
Sure we would. AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A GOVERNMENT RUN OPERATION.
It's called Rash Judgement, Not Guilty. Look it up.
The world of an anti is so straightforward: judge others. There are a few of them that troll that page and they are constantly painting abortion as a black and white issue. For them it is straightforward: a fetus is a baby and thus has the right to live.
Gee, a human being has a right to live. That's NOT a black-and-white issue?
They are able to totally ignore the woman and what it must be like to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Except for those several thousand Crisis Pregnancy Centres out there, who help women through their ordeals, getting help they can't get from other quarters...
And all those pro-life women who actually DO have an unwanted pregnancy.
First, you have male antis who are biologically incapable of becoming pregnant. Many men can sympathize with a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, but clearly there are men who continue to see the world in black and white and fail to accept that not all women want to be pregnant, and thus she should be entitled to terminate.
Because that pesky issue of the fetus...that's just non-sense. Hey, if a fetus has a die because a woman doesn't want to be pregnant...SO WHAT?
Anti-choice women are no less common than male antis. You have women who should understand the difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth, and yet they don't.
Wait...this lady, who's never had children is trying to lecture others about the difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth...as if no pro-life woman has ever had a difficult pregnancy?
They are unable to separate from their position of choosing to be a mother and accept that some women aren't ready/don't want to be.
Of course we are able to separate them.
It's just that it's irrelevant.
Whether you want to be a mom or not, you don't have the right to take a human life.
If you don't want to parent, place your child up for adoption.
Anti-choice women have a complete inability to empathize with women seeking abortions.
As if the things that drive women to seek abortions never happens to pro-life women.
They live in their ignorant world, believing that all women who become pregnant 'deserve' it.
You mean "you choose the actions, you choose the consequences.
Funny how a liberal would disagree with that...
That is, of course, until it happens to them.
Yeah. ONE HUNDRED PER CENT of pro-life women who experience unintended pregnancy abort.
As if.
Antis get abortions at the same rate that pro-choicers get abortions but they somehow think their abortion is different
The bait-and-switch.
For a pro-choicer, an anti is anyone who does not subscribe to their worldview on abortion-- and here's the important distinction-- whether or not they are pro-life.
So Hitler-- who was against abortions for Aryans, but favoured them for the untermensch-- is anti-choice, even though he's not pro-life.
Pro-choicers, on the other hand, have an astounding capacity for sympathy and empathy.
But an incredible lack of empathy for the fetus. Hey, if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of choice, so what?
I also have the ability to separate my personal beliefs from what I am willing to impose on another individual.
Except on the fetus.
It's 21st century pharasaism. I'm so good and holy-- you anti-choice sinners over there, you suck. I think the irony is lost on this woman.
I truly believe that our society is so dysfunctional because there are a large number of people in this world who profess to be tolerant, non-judgmental and caring (read: religious people), and yet they utterly fail as a group to actually demonstrate any of the above.
More 21st century Pharisee-like thinking. I mean isn't she just so tolerant, non-judgemental and caring (except when it comes tothe fetus who must DIE during the abortion?)
As an atheist, I have never been indoctrinated with the teachings of some god, nor am I afraid of being judged upon death. I live in this world seeking to make the lives of as many people as possible better.
Egocentric moral puffery. Clearly, humility is not an atheist value.
Then there are countries like the U.S. where greed abounds and the Tea Party would ban abortion, seeing the death of thousands of women,
If limited access to abortion leads women to kill themselves in self-induced abortions, and access is limited to large numbers of women, as feminists claim then...
Where are all the dead women?
but would never allow their money go to pre-natal care for underprivileged women.
Sure we would. AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A GOVERNMENT RUN OPERATION.
It's called Rash Judgement, Not Guilty. Look it up.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
VIDEO: Anti-Eco Tax Rally at Jim Watson's HQ
Debbie Jodoin has been organizing monthly rallies against Dalton McGuinty's tax and spend policies in Ottawa. This month's rally took place at Jim Watson's Election Campaign HeadQuarters. He is very much part of the Dalton McGuinty legacy.
Here is an excerpt of what she said:
Also, the blogger who publishes Xanthippa's Chamberpot made an appearance:
More to come.
Here is an excerpt of what she said:
Also, the blogger who publishes Xanthippa's Chamberpot made an appearance:
More to come.
VIDEO: Muslim Anti-Pope Protests (Must See)
Pope Benedict deserves death for insulting Islam.
(Who doesn't?)
They're calling for death, but WE'RE the evil ones...
(Who doesn't?)
They're calling for death, but WE'RE the evil ones...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Brazilian Pastor Threatened by Government for Opposing Pro-Abortion Policies
There's only one word for this: fascism.
The notion of the separation of Church and State was meant to protect the Church against such threats; not protect the state against those who act based on their religious beliefs.
The notion of the separation of Church and State was meant to protect the Church against such threats; not protect the state against those who act based on their religious beliefs.
Anti-abortion activists arrested over graphic banner
Andy Stephenson, 35, and Kathryn Sloane, 19, both committed Christians, were detained after a peaceful protest outside a publicly-funded abortion clinic.
The Crown Prosecution Service will decide next month whether to press charges against the pair for causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act.
Islamists who threatten violence against those who insult Islam?They protest freely!
I want to reiterate: I love the American 1st Amendment. Nobody has that in the whole world, America. Just remember that.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Scientists invent first artificial human ovary
Scientists still have to figure out if it can mature human eggs. Can the artificial uterus be far behind?
Some day, the artificial uterus will be invented. And there will be an obvious way to save human life (even though I'm not sure that putting a fetus in an artificial uterus is acceptable to Catholic theology-- it's certainly a lesser evil than abortion, though)
And feminists will still argue in favour of abortion, in spite of the existence of the means to simultaneously save fetuses and terminate pregnancy.
Because ultimately, the argument about abortion is recognizing the equality and dignity of the fetus vs. being able to escape moral responsibility for the fetus.
If it were really about avoiding parenthood, adoption could be the answer. If it were only about terminating pregnancy, then the artificial uterus would be the answer.
But it's not about that and has never been about that.
It's about being able to escape a relationship with the fetus, even as tenuous as that of a woman who anonymously places her child for adoption.
Some day, the artificial uterus will be invented. And there will be an obvious way to save human life (even though I'm not sure that putting a fetus in an artificial uterus is acceptable to Catholic theology-- it's certainly a lesser evil than abortion, though)
And feminists will still argue in favour of abortion, in spite of the existence of the means to simultaneously save fetuses and terminate pregnancy.
Because ultimately, the argument about abortion is recognizing the equality and dignity of the fetus vs. being able to escape moral responsibility for the fetus.
If it were really about avoiding parenthood, adoption could be the answer. If it were only about terminating pregnancy, then the artificial uterus would be the answer.
But it's not about that and has never been about that.
It's about being able to escape a relationship with the fetus, even as tenuous as that of a woman who anonymously places her child for adoption.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Pope Preaches Against the Dictatorship of Relativism
From today's homily in Scotland
The evangelization of culture is all the more important in our times, when a "dictatorship of relativism" threatens to obscure the unchanging truth about man’s nature, his destiny and his ultimate good. There are some who now seek to exclude religious belief from public discourse, to privatize it or even to paint it as a threat to equality and liberty. Yet religion is in fact a guarantee of authentic liberty and respect, leading us to look upon every person as a brother or sister. For this reason I appeal in particular to you, the lay faithful, in accordance with your baptismal calling and mission, not only to be examples of faith in public, but also to put the case for the promotion of faith’s wisdom and vision in the public forum. Society today needs clear voices which propose our right to live, not in a jungle of self-destructive and arbitrary freedoms, but in a society which works for the true welfare of its citizens and offers them guidance and protection in the face of their weakness and fragility. Do not be afraid to take up this service to your brothers and sisters, and to the future of your beloved nation.
Protests against the Pope: USELESS
Naturally, there will protests against the Pope on his State visit to the UK.
Can someone tell me what exactly the purpose of these protests are? What exactly will these protests accomplish?
Do these protesters genuinely expect the Church to change her stance on birth control and homosexuality? In any future century?
Don't hold your breath.
Can someone tell me what exactly the purpose of these protests are? What exactly will these protests accomplish?
Do these protesters genuinely expect the Church to change her stance on birth control and homosexuality? In any future century?
Don't hold your breath.
VIDEO: The only Iranian comic in the world (humour)
I'm surprised this guy wasn't reported to the Human Rights Commission. Oh wait, he's ethnic and funny...
H/T: Concerned for Life
H/T: Concerned for Life
How to Influence the Vatican: A Pro-Life Insider’s Perspective
I'm passing this on because I'm in favour of whatever promotes the pro-life cause.
So if this is what needs to be done to favour the pro-life cause, then so be it.
I'll tell you the truth.
The personal relationship aspect is difficult for me, given my background as a Quebec Catholic. And I sense this is true of other faithful Catholics from Quebec.
There's an overwhelming sense in Quebec that if you're not in a marginalized group, or that if you don't have direct business with the priest, he doesn't have the time of day for you. He has an agenda (usually a social justice one) and if you don't fit that agenda, he's just not that interested in talking to you. Being a priest is about the social justice agenda, NOT about saving souls.
I know it's somewhat different in Ontario, especially in orthodox parishes. I find them friendlier.
I suspect that the local institutional church loses credibility not just because of its deviation from Catholic norms, but also because of its ideologically-driven coldness to average people.
So if this is what needs to be done to favour the pro-life cause, then so be it.
Meaney said that the focus of “lobbying” at the Vatican, is not forcing change, therefore, but bringing needed information to the right people. Despite what many Catholic and pro-life people think, it is not enough just to call up the appropriate Vatican office and get an appointment to speak to the Cardinal Prefect. The key, he said, is developing personal relationships and maintaining them, sometimes for years or even decades. This is, he said, just the way of doing business of any kind in Italy.
For Italians, “it’s very, very helpful to have a personal connection,” he said. “Personal relationships are very important.”
I'll tell you the truth.
The personal relationship aspect is difficult for me, given my background as a Quebec Catholic. And I sense this is true of other faithful Catholics from Quebec.
There's an overwhelming sense in Quebec that if you're not in a marginalized group, or that if you don't have direct business with the priest, he doesn't have the time of day for you. He has an agenda (usually a social justice one) and if you don't fit that agenda, he's just not that interested in talking to you. Being a priest is about the social justice agenda, NOT about saving souls.
I know it's somewhat different in Ontario, especially in orthodox parishes. I find them friendlier.
I suspect that the local institutional church loses credibility not just because of its deviation from Catholic norms, but also because of its ideologically-driven coldness to average people.
Disturbing Government Meddling
Perhaps you remember some years back a woman by the name of Marie-Line Gentes filed a complaint to the CHRC against Free Dominion for having allowed a posting by Bill Whatcott that featured a very even-handed criticism of Islam.
In their on-going struggle against Human Rights Tribunal Censors and their allies, Mark and Connie, FD's operators, have obtained government documents that shed light on the background story of that complaint.
Mark Fournier relates that he believed that Marie-Line Gentes was originally more interested in complaining about Bill Whatcott rather than Free Dominion. But as she directed her initial inquiry to the CHRC, and her initial complaint was about a flyer in a mailbox, they could not help her, because that kind of action was under the jurisdiction of the provincial human rights commission. However, if the flyer was found on the interent, they told her, they could help her proceed with the complaint.
I read the documents in question, and I got the same impression.
Isn't that nice? Sounds like the CHRC was fishing for a case against FD.
In their on-going struggle against Human Rights Tribunal Censors and their allies, Mark and Connie, FD's operators, have obtained government documents that shed light on the background story of that complaint.
Mark Fournier relates that he believed that Marie-Line Gentes was originally more interested in complaining about Bill Whatcott rather than Free Dominion. But as she directed her initial inquiry to the CHRC, and her initial complaint was about a flyer in a mailbox, they could not help her, because that kind of action was under the jurisdiction of the provincial human rights commission. However, if the flyer was found on the interent, they told her, they could help her proceed with the complaint.
I read the documents in question, and I got the same impression.
Isn't that nice? Sounds like the CHRC was fishing for a case against FD.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Brave new world of fetal tissue experimentation
METHODS Human fetal testes (at 9 weeks, n = 4 and 14–18 weeks gestation, n = 6) were xenografted into male nude mice for 6 weeks, with or without hCG treatment of the host, and evaluated for normal cellular development (...)
Now where do you suppose they got that fetal tissue, hm?
Question: did the women whose fetuses were aborted consent to this use of fetal tissue? Inquiring minds want to know
Sexism! THAT'S WHY Sarah Palin was chosen for the Republican Ticket!
Sarah Palin wasn't actually very right-wing as Governor of Alaska. The Republicans made her into what she is!
And if we had only treated Hilary Clinton better...we would have worried about Sarah Palin.
Oh brother. What universe do these liberals live in?
And if we had only treated Hilary Clinton better...we would have worried about Sarah Palin.
Oh brother. What universe do these liberals live in?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Ottawa Pro-Abort Norman Barwin Cheated at Ottawa Marathon
The man being sued by two different families for having inseminated the women with the wrong sperm, and who is suspected of having used his own sperm, was caught cheating at the Ottawa Marathon, according to a Lifesite report in 2002:
There appears to be a pattern of dishonesty here.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
OTTAWA, November 18, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Norman Barwin, a celebrated Canadian abortion-promoter who has received the Order of Canada for his contribution to "women's reproductive health" and has a Planned Parenthood of Canada scholarship named in his honour, has been caught cheating in a marathon for the second time. The Ottawa Citizen reports that Barwin was caught cheating in the May 2001 National Capital Marathon when he placed first in his age category 60-64 - with the help of a car.
It was not the first time Barwin was caught cheating in a marathon. In the 2000 Boston Marathon Barwin was caught in similar circumstances. The race authorities caught him by checking the computer chip given all racers to see if he passed all checkpoints. When interviewed by the Citizen, Barwin first denied any wrongdoing suggesting his chip was faulty. However, he later changed his story saying he dropped out of the race because he had a hernia and joined in at the end for the "high of coming in."
Barwin, the former head of Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, told the Citizen, "It was quite out of character, I promise you." However, Frank Mountain, President of Campaign Life Coalition Ottawa told LifeSite that it was very much in Barwin's character to lie and cheat. "When Mr. Barwin broke the moral code by supporting and promoting the killing of the unborn child by abortion, then cheating at marathons is just a piece of cake."
There appears to be a pattern of dishonesty here.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Founder of Canadians for Choice being sued for fraudulent practices
OTTAWA - Two families have asked the Superior Court of Justice to order DNA testing of a celebrated Ottawa fertility specialist to determine whether his sperm was used to create their children.
Dr. Norman Barwin and the clinic he founded, the Broadview Fertility Clinic, have been named in two unusual lawsuits.
...
Barwin, the former president of Planned Parenthood Canada, was named to the Order of Canada in 1997 for his contributions to women's reproductive health.
NOTE: He is also founder of Canadians for Choice. Dollars to doughnuts says he's done a few abortions in his lifetime.
Anybody taking bets on whether he will be deprived of his Order, if convicted? I suspect he won't, given that he's a pro-abort stalwart.
That 2001 profile of the doctor revealed that he had failed to pass the exams required to become a certified gynecologist in Canada, despite holding a PhD in women's medicine from Queen's University in Northern Ireland. Barwin said he never took the time to study for the exams.
Barwin is licensed to practice medicine in Ontario as a general practitioner with a special interest in women's health.
It's interesting because the Canadians for Choice website says that he's a professor of OB\GYN at Ottawa U. Hmmm.......
Now, maybe the university accepted him as a professor based on his UK degree. But he couldn't pass the exam???
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Autistic kid is bullied; suspect protest harsh charges
Students face felony for bullying boy with autism
Watch the video! Very informative.
The suspects face five years in jail if convicted of the felony charges. The mom of one of the suspects has contacted the DA and asked for leniency. But we know they'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist.
Way out of hand? Gimme a break, kid. YOU are way out of hand. You PICKED ON A DEFENSELESS KID. You may get convicted for your acts of violence. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.
Apparently the fear instilled in this child doesn't amount to "hurt". Like only physical hurt matters.
Bullying makes my blood boil.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Watch the video! Very informative.
"Twenty minutes after we got out of court, one of the young men involved posted something very hurtful on Facebook."
The post says things like "Wow, this is way out of hand" and "The kid wasn't hurt."
The suspects face five years in jail if convicted of the felony charges. The mom of one of the suspects has contacted the DA and asked for leniency. But we know they'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist.
Way out of hand? Gimme a break, kid. YOU are way out of hand. You PICKED ON A DEFENSELESS KID. You may get convicted for your acts of violence. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.
Apparently the fear instilled in this child doesn't amount to "hurt". Like only physical hurt matters.
Bullying makes my blood boil.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Communist Rebels Decapitate Indian Pastor in front of Wife
As usual, leftist media doesn't care.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Iran Ayatollahs Issue Fatwas Against Koran-Burners
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Two Iranian grand ayatollahs issued fatwas calling for the killing of those who insult the Koran, including anyone who burns the Islamic holy book, the state-run Fars news agency reported.
No one was specified in the decrees, which were issued by Nasser Makarem-Shirazi and Hossein Nouri-Hamedani in response to questions asked by student groups from universities in Tehran, Fars said. Such an action against any individual could only be carried out with the authorization of an Islamic religious judge, they said.
“Undoubtedly, the blood of a person who burns the Koran should be shed,” Makarem-Shirazi was cited by Fars as saying. Everybody should “strongly condemn” such an act.
Like the crazies are going to wait for a judge to "pass sentence".
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Dalton McGuinty accuses Hudak of having a hidden agenda...while implementing one!
Christina Blizzard:
Not to mention "I will not lower taxes, but I will not raise them either."
If anyone has a hidden agenda, it's Dalton.
You gotta love this quote:
The "hidden agenda" accusation isn't pandering to fear???
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
The legislature returned for a raucous first session Monday, with Premier Dalton McGuinty accusing PC leader Tim Hudak of having a hidden agenda.
Hidden agenda? I guess you’d have to have one to know one.
What with the secret, no-go area around the G20 fence, the sneaky way eco fees were implemented and the hikes to electricity costs, McGuinty’s doing quite well in that area.
Not to mention "I will not lower taxes, but I will not raise them either."
If anyone has a hidden agenda, it's Dalton.
You gotta love this quote:
“You can pander to the fear or you can look to inspire people, speak to their better angels, as has been said. Find a way to lift them up,” McGuinty told reporters.
The "hidden agenda" accusation isn't pandering to fear???
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Monday, September 13, 2010
Join Big Blue Wave's Facebook Page
If you join Big Blue Wave's Facebook page, you will be alerted to new blogposts on your wall.
Join now and don't miss a single post :D Just click on the "like" button at the top.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Join now and don't miss a single post :D Just click on the "like" button at the top.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Baby has four parents
I feel a great big I TOLD YOU SO coming on:
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
The court heard that in 2006 the women approached two male friends who, like them, were in a long-term de facto relationship. After holding a ''baby summit'', the men agreed to provide their sperm on alternate months.
Baby E was born in 2008 and lived with his mother and her partner in Melbourne. The men relocated to Melbourne before his birth and saw him regularly.
Within months, however, disagreements arose about their responsibilities and sharing E's time. When mediation about this ''unchartered territory'' failed, the couples went to court.
''Not surprisingly, none of the adults were prepared for the flood of emotions occasioned by E's birth,'' Justice Dessau said. ''The emotions, the yearning to share and spend time with him, and the allocation of responsibilities was spread in four directions, not just in two.''
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Friday, September 10, 2010
Australia's Catholic church bans pop songs at funerals
But who cares, really?
Far more serious breaches of canon law and Catholic doctrine are routinely carried out in churches around the world, and nothing ever happens. So many of these edicts are just a dead letter.
Look Catholic leaders, if you want the faithful to take your leadership a little more seriously, start by enforcing the rules you already have. Among them, refusing communion to grave sinners, like politicians who vote for abortion.
Then maybe people will actually FOLLOW the rules on pop songs at church.
Not that I'm calling for disobedience. I'm just saying that you can't command obedience if you don't insist on it.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Far more serious breaches of canon law and Catholic doctrine are routinely carried out in churches around the world, and nothing ever happens. So many of these edicts are just a dead letter.
Look Catholic leaders, if you want the faithful to take your leadership a little more seriously, start by enforcing the rules you already have. Among them, refusing communion to grave sinners, like politicians who vote for abortion.
Then maybe people will actually FOLLOW the rules on pop songs at church.
Not that I'm calling for disobedience. I'm just saying that you can't command obedience if you don't insist on it.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Warren Kinsella uses political influence to settle a personal score
Details at Blazing Catfur.
So if the Canada-Israel Committee doesn't exclude Kathy Shaidle (FiveFeetofFury) and Kate McMillan (Small Dead Animals) from a trip to Israel they are sponsoring, Warren will advise the LPC that this group has "marginalized" itself.
This is the type of thing that makes me HATE the Liberal Party.
The overweening sense of entitlement. The belief that the political process exists to serve their petty agendas.
Warren Kinsella should get a grip.
Those bloggers are not racist. Their objection with Islam and various peoples who practice it is that they blow sh*t up whenever their widdle feewings are hurt. And the various societies in which they operate kowtow to these acts of violence (or threats thereof).
If the terrorists would just stop setting off explosives in crowds or slitting people's throats-- and stoning women-- and calling for a backward system of law called "sharia"-- all would be fine. No, it's true.
But as it is, there are major currents in Islam that advocate for this sort of thing.
And when their defenders feel offended, they think it's okay to harass their opponents with lawsuits and Human Rights Complaints.
These currents of Islam are the biggest threat to Israel's existence. Not Kathy Shaidle writing: "Dear Luftwaffe:come back all is forgiven".
I think the Jews understand what that statement is: biting irony. As opposed to the biting iron lodged in the brains of Israelis who are the victims of suicide attacks.
For goodness sake, they wouldn't be working for Israel's well-being if they were a genuine white supremacists.
And now because Warren thinks he's entitled to push people around with his political connections, he's going to try to cut of the CIC's access to power.
Mind you, I'm not sure that REALLY matters, seeing as the Liberals probably won't win the next election.
It's just the pettiness of it all. It stinks.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
So if the Canada-Israel Committee doesn't exclude Kathy Shaidle (FiveFeetofFury) and Kate McMillan (Small Dead Animals) from a trip to Israel they are sponsoring, Warren will advise the LPC that this group has "marginalized" itself.
This is the type of thing that makes me HATE the Liberal Party.
The overweening sense of entitlement. The belief that the political process exists to serve their petty agendas.
Warren Kinsella should get a grip.
Those bloggers are not racist. Their objection with Islam and various peoples who practice it is that they blow sh*t up whenever their widdle feewings are hurt. And the various societies in which they operate kowtow to these acts of violence (or threats thereof).
If the terrorists would just stop setting off explosives in crowds or slitting people's throats-- and stoning women-- and calling for a backward system of law called "sharia"-- all would be fine. No, it's true.
But as it is, there are major currents in Islam that advocate for this sort of thing.
And when their defenders feel offended, they think it's okay to harass their opponents with lawsuits and Human Rights Complaints.
These currents of Islam are the biggest threat to Israel's existence. Not Kathy Shaidle writing: "Dear Luftwaffe:come back all is forgiven".
I think the Jews understand what that statement is: biting irony. As opposed to the biting iron lodged in the brains of Israelis who are the victims of suicide attacks.
For goodness sake, they wouldn't be working for Israel's well-being if they were a genuine white supremacists.
And now because Warren thinks he's entitled to push people around with his political connections, he's going to try to cut of the CIC's access to power.
Mind you, I'm not sure that REALLY matters, seeing as the Liberals probably won't win the next election.
It's just the pettiness of it all. It stinks.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Abortion Gang Member: Life begins at birth because I care about women.
My favourite feminists are those who are adamant and unapologetic about abortion.
Like Megan, at Abortion Gang.
Hey, there's a surefire strategy to advance your cause: deny obvious scientific facts! Woohoo! That'll win the day.
Ignore that fetus behind that belly, says the Grand Wizardress of Oz. Nothing to see there! Move along!
Now, what in the world would make ANYONE think that feminists are heartless when it comes to abortion? I mean sure, they don't care about fetuses dying, or even the fact that they feel pain. But does complete indifference about causing suffering and death of an innocent human being really mean one is heartless? Pfff, come on!
And goodness knows the ONLY way to care about women is to harden our hearts towards any beings who suffer as a consequence of women's decisions. 'Cuz, you know, you have to prioritize who really matters. In the name of equality.
Yeah, those antichoicers, they don't give a DAMN about women. They don't have mothers, daughters, sisters or wives. And none of them are women themselves. Or if they are, they're all self-hating females. *Roll eyes*.
To unequivocally care about a group of people, you have to make sure the conflicting interests of others don't come into play, especially measly things like the right to life. So it's best not to care about fiddly things like scientific facts. And just go with whatever advance the interests of the group you espouse.
Political expediency: it works. It sure did a bang-up job in obtaining legal abortion on demand. I have to hand it to the abortion rights supporters. They know how to advance their interests at the expense of others.
And if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of female autonomy, well just too damn bad.
Right Megan?
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Like Megan, at Abortion Gang.
My blood boils when I encounter anti-choice propaganda, but I realize that I’m on the feminist fringe when it comes to abortion rights. For me, life begins at birth. Not conception. Not implantation. Not when the fetus’ heart begins to beat or when it develops the semblance of human phalanges. Life begins at birth because I care about women.
Hey, there's a surefire strategy to advance your cause: deny obvious scientific facts! Woohoo! That'll win the day.
Ignore that fetus behind that belly, says the Grand Wizardress of Oz. Nothing to see there! Move along!
I feel like the infamous baby guts of abortion lore necessitate the use of IF, ONLY, and BUT in mainstream discussions about the issue. Because she who does not temper her pro-choice perspective with IFs, ONLYs, and BUTs is a heartless, unmaternal feminist in the most negative sense of the word. How can one be anything but a frigid bitch when she unapologetically supports abortion rights despite those agonizing images of dead fetuses?
Now, what in the world would make ANYONE think that feminists are heartless when it comes to abortion? I mean sure, they don't care about fetuses dying, or even the fact that they feel pain. But does complete indifference about causing suffering and death of an innocent human being really mean one is heartless? Pfff, come on!
I guess my point is that I want mainstreamers to care about women as much as they care about babies.
(...)
And goodness knows the ONLY way to care about women is to harden our hearts towards any beings who suffer as a consequence of women's decisions. 'Cuz, you know, you have to prioritize who really matters. In the name of equality.
But I want to know this: How can we convince the public of the importance of women’s lives in the face Machiavellian anti-choice opposition? Because if mainstreamers unequivocally value women’s lives, the IFs, ONLYs, and BUTs will cease to exist.
Yeah, those antichoicers, they don't give a DAMN about women. They don't have mothers, daughters, sisters or wives. And none of them are women themselves. Or if they are, they're all self-hating females. *Roll eyes*.
To unequivocally care about a group of people, you have to make sure the conflicting interests of others don't come into play, especially measly things like the right to life. So it's best not to care about fiddly things like scientific facts. And just go with whatever advance the interests of the group you espouse.
Political expediency: it works. It sure did a bang-up job in obtaining legal abortion on demand. I have to hand it to the abortion rights supporters. They know how to advance their interests at the expense of others.
And if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of female autonomy, well just too damn bad.
Right Megan?
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Reflections on the question: "What if you had been aborted?"
Yes, this is a long blog post, but I've been meaning to get this off my chest.
In my conversations on pro-life issues, I often come across a line of argumentation that goes like this.
PL: Human life is valuable, therefore it should be protected from conception.
PC: But a fetus is not conscious during the abortion.
PL: But that's discriminating against a human based on age or development. How would you like it if someone had aborted you? You wouldn't be alive
PC: I wouldn't be conscious enough to care, therefore it wouldn't matter.
There are two things that are really wrong with this line of argumentation.
PART ONE: THE MEASURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING'S WORTH
In this discussion, the pro-choicer puts himself in the place of the fetus being killed. His only measure of anything is a subjectivity-- whether or not the fetus is capable of having an experience. In the left-wing mindset, experience is the only thing any human being can be sure of. This is the core value of modernism. Modernism rejects faith in the ability of human reason to know reality with certainty. Our experiences are the only thing we can be sure of (Re: "I think therefore I am".)
Of course, as experiences themselves are subject to error and uncertainty, this makes a mockery of its own ideals.
Which is why modernism morphed into post-modernism. Which denies that reality has any rules whatsoever.
But contemporary human beings are, on average, uncomfortable with post-modernism, precisely because it lacks any sort of yardstick. Intellectuals might be okay with reconciling the obvious contradictions of their belief system, but the average Joe isn't. He doesn't have the brains to accept that kind of nonsense. He needs core values. Which is why artsy-fartsy intellectuals sneer at the plebian mindset of the common people. Too angst-ridden and insecure to see reality for what it is. Or isn't. Or something like that.
Since intellectuals have more or less given up on Reason, and the common people don't have the brain power to engage in serious philosophizing--- the only thing the common people have to rely on to measure value is experience.
To most people, a being who cannot or will not have not have an "experience" is valueless. Regardless of whether it's a human being or not.
To them, there is no other concept of human value.
So the pro-lifer's job is to answer this question: why are human beings valuable?
Clearly, it is not because of their individual merit. While it's true that many individuals do manage to achieve great heights in their chosen fields, the vast majority of us don't. Some human beings are absolutely horrid. Osama bin Laden and Clifford Olson are two examples that come to mind. Even though they have committed unspeakable crimes, they never forfeited their membership in the human family, and therefore can be said to be rights bearers.
Human beings are valuable for what they are as a collective body. No animal species has ever built civilizations. No animals species has ever written music, published poetry, worshipped God, developed thought systems, launched charitable organizations, etc etc etc as humans have.
Clearly, there is "something" about humans that sets them apart from other beings.
It's elusive, isn't it...from an empirical perspective. There's something about the make-up of human beings that makes all this accomplishment possible.
We call it human nature.
Next question: if human beings are valuable as a body, why should individual human beings be valuable? Why SHOULD Clifford Olson be judged as equal to say Leonardo da Vinci.
Because each individual member of a category is ontologically equivalent insofar as they are a member of that category. So, for instance, one pine tree is the same as another pine tree.
I can see the objections coming. Some pine trees are rotten. And some people are rotten.
This is true. But as long as they meet the definition of a pine tree (or human) as the case may be, they are equivalent. Because goodness or rottenness is a quality of the thing being examined-- it's not the thing itself.
Okay, so Clifford Olson is the same as Leonardo. But then, why does that mean they are morally equivalent? Clifford Olson did evil things and Leonardo da Vinci did good things.
This is true. But whether a person does good or bad things, or does nothing at all, it doesn't change what he is.
So what all this boils down to is that experience or "consciousness" has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are a human being or a person. Or whether you have value.
If two people come together and produce another being...that's a human being, because from a biological perspective, like produces like. And from the moment a human being exists, he is intrinsically worthy.
So what does this have to do with the abortion debate?
It means that fetuses are human beings. And as members of the human family, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else.
Their value does not derive from anything they do. Their value is in being part of the human family. From human nature.That is all.
PART TWO: WHY SOCIETY CRIMINALIZES KILLING
Because people tend to judge things based purely on experience, they tend to think of murder as an act that is PURELY against the victim because of a lack of consent for death.
While it is true that murder is primarily an act committed against the victim, with the victim gone one should ask: why does society prosecute murder?
It's not like the victim is there to say: hey! My right to life was violated! How dare you!
One reason society prosecutes murder is because it is not only a crime against the individual, but a crime against society as well.
One of the functions of governments is to protect order for the common good. Society then has a right to say to that culprit: hey you, you attacked one of us. You're gonna pay.
We regularly see evidence of this when citizens are killed in foreign countries. Take for instance, Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photographer who was killed while in Iranian custody. The Canadian government made a big deal of this case. Why would it do that, except in the name of justice towards Canada as a collective body? She wasn't alive to appreciate it. It won't have much of a dissuasive effect-- Iran will continue to kill Canadian nationals if it sees fit. The only reason to do it is to demand justice for Canada itself. Canada had to send a message to Iran: hey! You can't do that to one of us! That's wrong!
The bottom line is that whether the fetus is able to appreciate the fact that he's being killed does not matter as far as the justification for criminalizing his killing. A fetus has the right to same consideration as any other member of the human family, and his murder should be prosecuted like any other murder.
So, in answer to the PCer who says that "if I had been aborted, I wouldn't have known otherwise, therefore it would not have mattered", I say: Yes it would have mattered, and mattered a lot. Human beings are valuable in and of themselves, and even if the victim has no experience of the murder, society has a vested interest in demanding justice for the harm of depriving itself of one of its members.
PART THREE: Addendum
Now of course, the pro-life objection "how would you like it if you were aborted" is a legitimate question, but a poor tactic, in light of people's values and thought processes. While it's true that it invokes people's appreciation of their own self-worth, debaters will deny their own self-worth in the name of defending the right to abortion. They don't believe in "It's a Wonderful Life". They think that caring about your own existence, and affirming your intrinsic worth (and feeling entitled to have that worth recognized) is a sign of self-importance. As in: who cares if you hadn't existed? Nobdoy would KNOW the difference!
But reality operates at a level that transcends an individual's experience. It's true that nobody would know the difference, but REALITY WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. And that it lacked YOU made it all the poorer.
Since pro-aborts don't typically believe in the intrinsic value of the individual, that doesn't matter.
It's also a rhetorically easy tactic because the debater isn't under any threat. So they can be glib about the non-worth at the fetal stage. I've seen pro-choicers write: "If I had been a fetus, I would have never wanted my existence to impinge on my mother's choice to have me or not."
Who would REALLY allow anyone to kill them, let alone allow their mothers to do it, at such a vulnerable stage?
The trick is that if they affirm their intrinsic self-worth and entitlement to protection, then the whole abortion argument crumbles.
But seeing as they can reconcile themselves to renouncing their own self-worth in order to win the argument, they will.
Now, of course, their argument is fallacious, as I've shown, but it takes a long roundabout response to refute it.
So that's why I'm not keen on the "what if you had been aborted" tactic.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
In my conversations on pro-life issues, I often come across a line of argumentation that goes like this.
PL: Human life is valuable, therefore it should be protected from conception.
PC: But a fetus is not conscious during the abortion.
PL: But that's discriminating against a human based on age or development. How would you like it if someone had aborted you? You wouldn't be alive
PC: I wouldn't be conscious enough to care, therefore it wouldn't matter.
There are two things that are really wrong with this line of argumentation.
PART ONE: THE MEASURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING'S WORTH
In this discussion, the pro-choicer puts himself in the place of the fetus being killed. His only measure of anything is a subjectivity-- whether or not the fetus is capable of having an experience. In the left-wing mindset, experience is the only thing any human being can be sure of. This is the core value of modernism. Modernism rejects faith in the ability of human reason to know reality with certainty. Our experiences are the only thing we can be sure of (Re: "I think therefore I am".)
Of course, as experiences themselves are subject to error and uncertainty, this makes a mockery of its own ideals.
Which is why modernism morphed into post-modernism. Which denies that reality has any rules whatsoever.
But contemporary human beings are, on average, uncomfortable with post-modernism, precisely because it lacks any sort of yardstick. Intellectuals might be okay with reconciling the obvious contradictions of their belief system, but the average Joe isn't. He doesn't have the brains to accept that kind of nonsense. He needs core values. Which is why artsy-fartsy intellectuals sneer at the plebian mindset of the common people. Too angst-ridden and insecure to see reality for what it is. Or isn't. Or something like that.
Since intellectuals have more or less given up on Reason, and the common people don't have the brain power to engage in serious philosophizing--- the only thing the common people have to rely on to measure value is experience.
To most people, a being who cannot or will not have not have an "experience" is valueless. Regardless of whether it's a human being or not.
To them, there is no other concept of human value.
So the pro-lifer's job is to answer this question: why are human beings valuable?
Clearly, it is not because of their individual merit. While it's true that many individuals do manage to achieve great heights in their chosen fields, the vast majority of us don't. Some human beings are absolutely horrid. Osama bin Laden and Clifford Olson are two examples that come to mind. Even though they have committed unspeakable crimes, they never forfeited their membership in the human family, and therefore can be said to be rights bearers.
Human beings are valuable for what they are as a collective body. No animal species has ever built civilizations. No animals species has ever written music, published poetry, worshipped God, developed thought systems, launched charitable organizations, etc etc etc as humans have.
Clearly, there is "something" about humans that sets them apart from other beings.
It's elusive, isn't it...from an empirical perspective. There's something about the make-up of human beings that makes all this accomplishment possible.
We call it human nature.
Next question: if human beings are valuable as a body, why should individual human beings be valuable? Why SHOULD Clifford Olson be judged as equal to say Leonardo da Vinci.
Because each individual member of a category is ontologically equivalent insofar as they are a member of that category. So, for instance, one pine tree is the same as another pine tree.
I can see the objections coming. Some pine trees are rotten. And some people are rotten.
This is true. But as long as they meet the definition of a pine tree (or human) as the case may be, they are equivalent. Because goodness or rottenness is a quality of the thing being examined-- it's not the thing itself.
Okay, so Clifford Olson is the same as Leonardo. But then, why does that mean they are morally equivalent? Clifford Olson did evil things and Leonardo da Vinci did good things.
This is true. But whether a person does good or bad things, or does nothing at all, it doesn't change what he is.
So what all this boils down to is that experience or "consciousness" has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are a human being or a person. Or whether you have value.
If two people come together and produce another being...that's a human being, because from a biological perspective, like produces like. And from the moment a human being exists, he is intrinsically worthy.
So what does this have to do with the abortion debate?
It means that fetuses are human beings. And as members of the human family, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else.
Their value does not derive from anything they do. Their value is in being part of the human family. From human nature.That is all.
PART TWO: WHY SOCIETY CRIMINALIZES KILLING
Because people tend to judge things based purely on experience, they tend to think of murder as an act that is PURELY against the victim because of a lack of consent for death.
While it is true that murder is primarily an act committed against the victim, with the victim gone one should ask: why does society prosecute murder?
It's not like the victim is there to say: hey! My right to life was violated! How dare you!
One reason society prosecutes murder is because it is not only a crime against the individual, but a crime against society as well.
One of the functions of governments is to protect order for the common good. Society then has a right to say to that culprit: hey you, you attacked one of us. You're gonna pay.
We regularly see evidence of this when citizens are killed in foreign countries. Take for instance, Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photographer who was killed while in Iranian custody. The Canadian government made a big deal of this case. Why would it do that, except in the name of justice towards Canada as a collective body? She wasn't alive to appreciate it. It won't have much of a dissuasive effect-- Iran will continue to kill Canadian nationals if it sees fit. The only reason to do it is to demand justice for Canada itself. Canada had to send a message to Iran: hey! You can't do that to one of us! That's wrong!
The bottom line is that whether the fetus is able to appreciate the fact that he's being killed does not matter as far as the justification for criminalizing his killing. A fetus has the right to same consideration as any other member of the human family, and his murder should be prosecuted like any other murder.
So, in answer to the PCer who says that "if I had been aborted, I wouldn't have known otherwise, therefore it would not have mattered", I say: Yes it would have mattered, and mattered a lot. Human beings are valuable in and of themselves, and even if the victim has no experience of the murder, society has a vested interest in demanding justice for the harm of depriving itself of one of its members.
PART THREE: Addendum
Now of course, the pro-life objection "how would you like it if you were aborted" is a legitimate question, but a poor tactic, in light of people's values and thought processes. While it's true that it invokes people's appreciation of their own self-worth, debaters will deny their own self-worth in the name of defending the right to abortion. They don't believe in "It's a Wonderful Life". They think that caring about your own existence, and affirming your intrinsic worth (and feeling entitled to have that worth recognized) is a sign of self-importance. As in: who cares if you hadn't existed? Nobdoy would KNOW the difference!
But reality operates at a level that transcends an individual's experience. It's true that nobody would know the difference, but REALITY WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. And that it lacked YOU made it all the poorer.
Since pro-aborts don't typically believe in the intrinsic value of the individual, that doesn't matter.
It's also a rhetorically easy tactic because the debater isn't under any threat. So they can be glib about the non-worth at the fetal stage. I've seen pro-choicers write: "If I had been a fetus, I would have never wanted my existence to impinge on my mother's choice to have me or not."
Who would REALLY allow anyone to kill them, let alone allow their mothers to do it, at such a vulnerable stage?
The trick is that if they affirm their intrinsic self-worth and entitlement to protection, then the whole abortion argument crumbles.
But seeing as they can reconcile themselves to renouncing their own self-worth in order to win the argument, they will.
Now, of course, their argument is fallacious, as I've shown, but it takes a long roundabout response to refute it.
So that's why I'm not keen on the "what if you had been aborted" tactic.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Warren Kinsella attempts slimy political tactic
Okay, I suppose the headline states the obvious but...
He attacks Rob Ford for being associated with Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire.
What about Warren Kinsella's association with terrorism apologists?
If that's the standard of politicking at Rocco Rossi's team, I'd be embarrassed. Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire are threats to society, but Elmasry is not, even as its head says all Israeli citizens are lawful targets for killing?
Give.me.a.break.
We all know how Warren Kinsella operates. He plays political hardball using morally dubious tactics to win election campaigns (like make fun of Stockwell Day's faith). He'll crap on anyone, make any kind of hypocritical statement just to win a vote, or advance his cause. And oh yeah, he threatens people with lawsuits, too.
He represents what people hate about politics. Scuzzy, slimy,and underhanded. And he's just so obvious about it. He has no shame. He thinks that just because he's a lawyer and has money that he can just push people around. I don't think he gets what an elitist he's being, even as he's supposed to be "progressive" and defending the little guy.
Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire are "the little guys". Warren Kinsella is not.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
He attacks Rob Ford for being associated with Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire.
What about Warren Kinsella's association with terrorism apologists?
If that's the standard of politicking at Rocco Rossi's team, I'd be embarrassed. Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire are threats to society, but Elmasry is not, even as its head says all Israeli citizens are lawful targets for killing?
Give.me.a.break.
We all know how Warren Kinsella operates. He plays political hardball using morally dubious tactics to win election campaigns (like make fun of Stockwell Day's faith). He'll crap on anyone, make any kind of hypocritical statement just to win a vote, or advance his cause. And oh yeah, he threatens people with lawsuits, too.
He represents what people hate about politics. Scuzzy, slimy,and underhanded. And he's just so obvious about it. He has no shame. He thinks that just because he's a lawyer and has money that he can just push people around. I don't think he gets what an elitist he's being, even as he's supposed to be "progressive" and defending the little guy.
Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire are "the little guys". Warren Kinsella is not.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
University of Calgary Denies Hearing for Pro-Life Students
CALGARY – The University of Calgary upheld an earlier decision finding eight of its students, who set up a controversial pro-life display on campus in April 2010, guilty of “non-academic misconduct”. A five-person Appeal Board wrote to each member of Campus Pro-Life indicating that they will not conduct a hearing, and that the Appeal Board affirms the “guilty” verdict imposed in May 2010 by Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton.
Read more
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Further Mutilation of Women?
B.C. researchers are urging gynecologists to remove a woman's fallopian tubes during a hysterectomy or tubal ligation as a means of preventing ovarian cancer, one of the deadliest malignancies affecting Canadian females.
And you know what? If I get a mastectomy, that will reduce my chances of getting breast cancer by 100%. [/sarcasm]
Are we going to have fallopian tube removals on demand in the name of cancer prevention now? My body, my choice, dammit!
And if you have your fallopian tubes removed, it's not a tubal ligation any more, isn't it?
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Fidel Castro says Cuban model no longer works
NO KIDDING!
Gee, what did the hospital give you to cure you, Fidel? It could become Cuba's biggest export.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Gee, what did the hospital give you to cure you, Fidel? It could become Cuba's biggest export.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Nobody is THAT perfect
Mark Steyn, on the Canadian Human Rights Commission's prosecution of Section 13:
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
A courtroom that offers the 100 per cent certainty of a guilty verdict is not justice. It is, indeed, an institutionalized miscarriage of justice, using "miscarriage" in the most literal sense.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
VIDEO: Austrian thugs assault pro-life protesters in Vienna #prolife
And nobody is prosecuted for it.(VIDEO AT THE LINK)
Pro-life readers, please do not turn away from this story and do nothing.
WRITE THE AUSTRIAN AMBASSADOR NOW!
Americans, you can use this email form for the embassy in Washington.
Canadians, you can email the Canadian ambassador, Werner Brandstetter.
This is the letter that I wrote:
Write a letter, and now get at least ten more friends to write a letter.
The fight for life is an international one. How can pro-lifers just sit back when the basic right to free speech is being violated? We all have to jump in on this. Don't turn away and do nothing. Some day it just might be us!
If enough blogs and people comment on this, perhaps the news will make its way back to Austria.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Pro-life readers, please do not turn away from this story and do nothing.
WRITE THE AUSTRIAN AMBASSADOR NOW!
Americans, you can use this email form for the embassy in Washington.
Canadians, you can email the Canadian ambassador, Werner Brandstetter.
This is the letter that I wrote:
Dear Sir
I am writing to express my concern regarding the harassment of pro-life protesters in front of the clinic of abortionist Christian Fiala.
The video evidence suggests that peaceful protesters are being assaulted and harmed for the simple act of reciting the rosary on a public street.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090701.html
In spite of the documentation of repeated acts of violence, no prosecution is forthcoming. These protesters' right to free speech is being violated in fact and in law, yet nothing is being done. The treatment of this case suggests that Austria is not adamant in its defense of the right to voice one's opinion in the public square.
Need I remind you that free speech is a human right. It is a necessary element of a democratic society and it must be protected by the force of law. I demand that the individuals guilty of the offenses be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that those who defend the right to life maybe allowed to freely pray in on a public sidewalk without harassment.
Write a letter, and now get at least ten more friends to write a letter.
The fight for life is an international one. How can pro-lifers just sit back when the basic right to free speech is being violated? We all have to jump in on this. Don't turn away and do nothing. Some day it just might be us!
If enough blogs and people comment on this, perhaps the news will make its way back to Austria.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Monday, September 06, 2010
Proof again that if a fetus has to suffer and die, feminists don't care
Priests for Life (USA) has put up a page showing ads for abortions up to 28 weeks:
But what's the problem? It's only a baby suffering and dying. Human rights? What human rights? He won't know the difference once he's dead.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
But what's the problem? It's only a baby suffering and dying. Human rights? What human rights? He won't know the difference once he's dead.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Friday, September 03, 2010
VIDEO: W.A.K.E.U.P. [Women Against the Killing and Exploitation of Unprotected Persons] #prolife
Pro-lifers, this is a ten minute video about a relatively unknown group. Take the time to watch it. It's a worthwhile organization. You may learn something.
H/T: AIP News and Tom.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
H/T: AIP News and Tom.
STOP: Did you access this post using TWITTER? If so, please CLICK ON THE TITLE before COMMENTING. OTHERWISE-- your comment will not appear!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)