VIDEO: Karol Wojtyla, the unpublished images - part 4 (1978)

Pope John Paul II as we want to remember him.

Pro-lifers must get doctors onside in the fight for fetal rights

There are basically two groups of people you have to convince about the evil of abortion in order to limit it.

One is women.

The other is doctors.

The reason abortion gets legalized is because doctors want it legalized. I have seen this time and again. If abortion is just a feminist issue, nobody gives a crap. If abortion becomes a so-called medical issue, then criminalizing it seems cruel.

Pro-lifers have reached out to women, but now we have to reach out to doctors. We have to convince them, through evidence and through moral suasion, that abortion is not a medical issue.

It's probably easier to convince thousands of doctors of the evils of abortion than millions of women, especially since doctors have to care about facts (whereas women in a crisis tend to care about getting out of trouble, regardless of the means).

I also have another suggestion.

Perhaps the pro-life community should think more about pushing its own into the medical profession. I know that seems difficult in this day and age, but I think it's absolutely necessary before the pro-aborts completely take over and it's too late.

We should consider founding numerous scholarships for pro-life students to enter into fields of medicine that are affected by the issue: GP's, OB\GYN's, nursing, ultrasound, genetics, embryology (if that's even possible anymore) and the like.

And when I speak of handing out scholarships, I don't mean one or two a year. It would have to be dozens for it to have an impact.

I also think we should perhaps suggest to our children the possibility of a future in the medical profession. We have more kids than the poor-choice. In the days of old, every large Catholic family had a priest or a nun among its numbers. In the same vein, perhaps every large pro-life family should have at least one medical professional among its numbers.

We should also consider suggesting law as a possible pro-life career, but that's another blogpost.

Hugging and Kissing

A thought from The Theology of Dad:

And now, a momentary digression on Catholic hugging. It's new, it's young, it's happening, it's something I avoid like the plague. The last thing from which I could draw benefit is another women's breast pressed up against me. I mean, I am not everyman, yet the logic strikes me as sound. People have assured me that there is a proper way to hug  - and breasts are not involved in it. I remain unconvinced.

To all the people who hug me, please don't take it personally. I'm sure this is the Brit in me talking.

I think there's too much hugging in the world.

Hugging to me should be reserved to people you're actually close to. Like close family and friends you see on a regular basis.

You go to events now and everyone expects a hug. I reciprocate because I don't want to be a stick in the mud.

But I'd really rather reserve it to people close to me.

Because that's what makes it special. I don't want to deal out hugs to just anyone.

I also feel the same about kissing. Kissing it the thing in Quebec. You get kissed all the time, especially if you're a woman. I've never quite mastered the two-cheek kiss, which confirms my status as an Anglo-Quebecker.

I find you can't really ask not to be kissed. It's highly ingrained in French culture, especially at New Year's.

And please understand: I'm not trying to make this about sin. It's about personal space and the meaning of the gesture.

Everyone wants to be so close and so friendly to everyone else that they feel they have to do all the things that close friends do.

But that's just it-- they're close friends. Not acquaintances who meet every now and then. That relationship has earned the hug.

Fifty years ago, people wanted to break down the boundaries.

Now I wish we could put some back up. Hugging people to be close to them is rather fake. You have to be close first, then, when that closeness is established, that's when a hug is appropriate.

And to all the people reading this who hug me: don't take it personally. I'm profoundly British this way.

What you have to look forward to as an abortion nurse

I happened upon this Master's thesis in Nursing that deals with the professional identity of nurses and abortion.

Take a look at it. It has some interesting points. The main being that the discourse around abortion inhibits people from doing abortions.

This is precisely why poor-choicers want to silence us.

Anyhow, I thought this tidbit was interesting:

After the abortion, nurses are responsible for “the management and appropriate disposal of the fetus” (Huntington,
2002, p. 275). In fulfilling this responsibility, especially after therapeutic abortions performed at later gestational ages, “nurses are frequently required to clean and dress the fetus, ensure transfer to an appropriate receptacle” (Huntington, 2002, p. 275) and support the mother in viewing or photographing the fetus, if she so chooses (Huntington, 2002).

So your job as an abortion nurse is to dress the baby you just helped kill.

In one room, you try to save a baby.

In the next room, you help kill the baby and then dress the baby. You didn't respect the baby enough in life to keep him alive, but you'll show enough respect in death to put some clothes on him.

That's the contradiction of abortion. It will be its downfall. It's why abortion will never be destigmatized.

TV Note: Alveda King on Charles Adler this Thursday

Sun News Network reports that Alveda King will be on Charles Adler this Thursday at 8 pm.

Pass it on!

Accessing prostitutes is a right says Australian Sex Party

"Access to a sex worker should be seen as one of a number of options to consider when supporting people with disabilities to make decisions about their sexual needs," the guidelines stat

Fulfilling the sexual needs of the disabled is a government function now.

Adult industry body Eros chief executive Fiona Patten said: "You have health professionals and aged-care workers who see the sex industry as a valuable tool for providing services to their clients, yet the lawmakers do not take a commonsense approach to this and regulate the industry as they should."

And a way to legitimize our pornographic culture to make tons of money. Ka-ching!

Disabled people deserve better than prostitutes. It should be obvious, but alas, no.

H/T: Media Dis-n-Dat

Here are ten things we evil capitalists really think

Here's a summary of a blogpost at The Telegraph:

1. Free-marketeers resent the bank bailouts.

2. What has happened since 2008 is not capitalism.

3. If you want the rich to pay more, create a flatter and simpler tax system.

4. Those of us who believe in small government are not motivated by the desire to make the rich richer.

5. We are not against equality. . . Our objection is not that egalitarianism is undesirable in itself, but that the policies required to enforce in involve a disproportionate loss of liberty and prosperity.

6. Nor, by the way, does state intervention seem to be an effective way to promote equality.

7. Let’s tackle the idea that being on the Left means being on the side of ordinary people, while being on the Right means defending privileged elites.

8. Capitalism, with all its imperfections, is the fairest scheme yet tried.

9. Talking of fairness, let’s remember that the word doesn’t belong to any faction.

10. Let’s not forget ethics, either. There is virtue in deciding to do the right thing, but there is no virtue in being compelled.

H/T: The Politics of the Cross Resurrected

The Culture of Lust

It doesn't just foster misogyny but misandry as well.

Leona Salazar at Bernard Goldberg.com:

I remember listening to some interviews with working strippers at Scores in NYC some years ago and what struck me at the time was the disdain these gals had for the men who couldn’t give away their money fast enough. As part of their nightly ritual, the girls would get together after the club closed and rag on the guys who were the most pathetic or who had given them the most money. Most of the gals in the interview didn’t even like men!

So here you have all these guys in North Dakota, and in every other strip club in the world, thinking these girls are dancing just for them, have eyes only for them, and these girls are probably thinking about when their next pedicure is scheduled or laughing on the inside about how ridiculous this guy looks. And let’s not forget how many of these gals are either hooked on drugs or alcohol. I recall a mother in one of my cases years ago who was a stripper and also an alcoholic who told an evaluator, “Do you think I could take off my clothes the way I do if I were sober?”

Personally, I’ve never bought into the mantra so many “dancers” chant, “I’m saving for college.” I would really like to hear from any stripper who actually saved for college, earned a degree and is a success. The other response I easily dismiss is “why should I work for minimum wage when I can make this kind of money?” Uh, lady, did you ever hear of the concept “self-respect?”

The sad thing is that there lots of people in the world who don't understand what self-respect is. And that's why they do this kind of thing. They don't understand you're supposed to value yourself, your body, your image, your own honour. They don't understand what that respect entails. They think it's something you make up, that you define for yourself, as if self-respect had no rules of its own.

Paradigms of homosexuality

Homosexualist groups “have come to adopt a view of homosexuality we might call the ‘gay identity’ paradigm,” Sprigg observes. He explains that the foundations of the “gay identity” paradigm are beliefs that sexual orientation is an innate personal characteristic, like race, and that there is no harm in being homosexual.

“Based on these beliefs (or, in many cases, unspoken presuppositions), gay activist groups declare, and some others have come to accept, that for someone to believe that heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality is equivalent to believing that one race is superior to another, and therefore represents a form of bigotry and even ‘hate’ toward gays and lesbians as individuals,” Sprigg states.

“However, this conclusion about critics of homosexuality cannot be valid unless the presuppositions of the ‘gay identity’ paradigm are empirically true.”

“Yet the empirical case for the ‘gay identity’ paradigm is weak - science has not found that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors, and there is an abundance of evidence that sexual orientation can change.”

The paradigm of social conservatives, on the other hand, is based not on “gay identity” but rather on the “homosexual conduct paradigm.”

“We believe homosexual conduct is harmful,” says Sprigg, “and therefore oppose demands that homosexual conduct and relationships be protected, affirmed, and celebrated. The harms associated with homosexuality include serious physical and mental health problems.”

Notwithstanding the experience of ex-gays:

Sprigg concludes: “In recent years, and even more so in recent months, public discussions about the issue of homosexuality have taken an ominous turn - those demanding public affirmation of homosexual conduct and relationships have begun to abandon the methods of honest and respectful debate, and demand that no debate on the issue of homosexuality be permitted.

Case in point-- Bill Whatcott:

“Some homosexual activists” he pointed out, “call criticism of any aspect of their sexual practices and political activities ‘hate.’ The ‘hate’ word is so abused and misused to bully people who disagree with leftist agendas and homosexual activism into silence, that the word is almost meaningless in the politically correct context.”

See it's not about hate. The homosexuals who try to silence so-cons are typically more hateful than the people who disagree with them.

Leftists typically re-defne words applying the emotional charge of the old definition to the new definition. Their use of language is typically self-serving.

‘Most difficult year in our history,’ laments Planned Parenthood President

Sing: poooooooour your misery down, poooooooour your misery down on me...

Quebec to ban prayer in home-based daycares

What are Catholics going to do about it?


*Crickets*

Former Planned Parenthood Worker: It Only Cares About Abortion

Catherine Adair in LifeNews:

“My time there was not spent providing prenatal care to pregnant women, providing counseling or basic health care services or educating women about reproductive health. Instead, I spent my days urging women to terminate their pregnancies. My superiors constantly reminded me of our abortion-centered business model: abortions first, everything else came second,” she writes. “I began to recognize their emphasis on performing abortions each time a woman would express concern or have second thoughts about having an abortion. When I notified management, though, they told me not to worry and encourage her decision to move ahead with the procedure.”

While the abortion business regularly makes it appear that abortions constitute a small percentage of what it does, Adair says that is misleading.

“Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to fool the public into thinking that abortions make up only “3 percent of services provided” in their clinics. In reality, according to its most recent report, abortion patients constitute 12 percent of all Planned Parenthood clients, or 332,000 of 3 million unduplicated clients,” Adair explains. “They used my misunderstanding of what the organization stood for to encourage me to perform and assist in a practice that makes up 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women.”

Adair also says Planned Parenthood frequently misleads women about the development of their unborn child.

She writes: “In fact, clinic workers would purposefully avoid providing information on fetal development, what the child looked like, the child’s anatomical development and the pain he or she could feel. I was continuously reminded that when referring to the baby, the appropriate terminology was “clump of cells” or “contents of the uterus.” Planned Parenthood’s mission is to pressure as many women into having an abortion as it can. Those in charge know that can’t be accomplished if they refer to the child as a “baby.” Then women would know what was really growing inside them: a little person with a beating heart, functioning nervous system, tiny hands and feet. The child is entirely disregarded. There is no counseling, no care, no waiting and no discussion. Once a pregnancy is confirmed, it is off to termination.”

Nothing new here.

Smoking marijuana not a religious practice, judge tells Church of the Universe member

National Post

The judge said while Bennett produced voluminous evidence of religious uses of cannabis throughout history, the marijuana-related practices of Rastafarians or Ethiopian Coptic Christians were irrelevant.

What was relevant, he said, was whether Bennett could tie his use of marijuana to a comprehensive system of faith and worship. On that point, the judge said, Bennett had produced “almost no evidence” to show a connection, other than to repeatedly say it helps him to “connect to the divine.”

...

Bennett effectively smokes marijuana almost constantly, the judge said, “no matter what the context (he even admitted to having smoked marijuana before his cross-examination in this case).

#fail

Any bets on whether this dumb case will make it to the Supreme Court?

IVF in all its glory

Dr. Frank describes the IVF process:

In the later IVF cycle, the woman is given medications that dangerously overstimulate her ovaries (far beyond their natural function) in order to cause the development of 10 or more ova (eggs) at a time. Naturally, a woman only produces one ovum per cycle. She and her husband are given strict instructions to avoid marital intercourse during this process. Ironically, the woman is placed on a birth-control pill. Then, around mid cycle the couple is brought in to the office. The husband is given pornography along with instructions to collect semen in a specimen cup via masturbation in a nearby toilet stall. The same day, the woman is taken to a procedure room where her ova are “harvested,” in a most undignified and miserable process by which a large-bore needle is directed through the vagina into her ovaries. In the same room, the technician designated “embryologist” examines the eggs under microscope and literally mixes them in plastic petri dish with the recently provided semen.

Imagine you're a kid born through IVF and you found out your dad conceived you with the aid of a porn mag...blecch!

Late-term abortion on wrong fetus twin at 32 weeks

Oops!

So the world cries that the wrong twin was killed, but if the intended victim had been killed-- at 32 weeks-- nobody would have cared.

What a world.

Taking the abortion debate to the next level

Like Stephanie Gray, more and more I’m encountering extremely selfish reasoning on the poor-choice side.

Pro-lifers used to think that if we convinced the public that the unborn were persons, we could turn the tide on abortion.

Feminists don’t think that way. They avoid the discussion about the fetus. There are many reasons for this. Of course they know they would lose if the focus turns to the unborn child. But for them it’s not at all about the fetus. So their strategy is to make the fetus, his humanity and his moral status irrelevant. They call the attempt to concentrate on the fetus the “fetus focus fallacy”.

As far as they are concerned, women are oppressed. Not fetuses. It’s all the patriarchy’s fault. Women’s choices are not their responsibility. Because these choices are the result of a patriarchal society imposing ideas and standards (including moral standards) that make women subservient to men. That is the only paradigm that matters to feminists: power and equality. Everything else is just details. If anything makes women unequal, it is wrong. Full stop.

Women’s reproductive capacity is ultimately what makes them unequal. Because it prevents women from competing with men on a level playing field. It makes them dependent on men. And that reproductive capacity is co-opted by men to serve their selfish interests. If women cannot control their bodies, they cannot control their destinies and therefore cannot be equal.

In that light, asserting that fetuses are persons is wrong. Arguing that abortion is murder is misogynistic. It can’t be. Abortion is what makes women equal.

Because feminists are strongly convinced of the principle that women must be made equal at all costs, they cannot examine the facts dispassionately. To them, the idea that fetuses are persons is made up. Asserting the personhood of the unborn child is a very convenient and self-serving way of making women subservient to the interests of others at the expense of their own autonomy, interests and self-fulfillment. And even if it is true that a fetus is a person: so what? Women are entitled to protect their interests, that is, to achieve equality. The imposed obligation to take care of a baby undermines equality because it prevents a woman from pursuing her interests: education, career, self-fulfillment and so on. Caring for an unwanted child is forced motherhood, the very epitome of patriarchal oppression . Because it is motherhood and the patriarchal ideas about selflessness that make women subservient. So it’s necessary for women to be “selfish”.

While most “normal” people don’t think that way, i.e. they don’t invoke the patriarchy, there is often a feminist undercurrent in mainstream arguments in favour of legal abortion. For instance, it is often argued that if abortion is made illegal, thousands of women will die from unsafe abortion. It is always assumed that the choice to seek out these quack abortionists is always made out of desperation and ignorance, and that women are therefore not to be held accountable for that decision to seek out what everyone knows to be a potentially dangerous operation. Attributing responsibility to their suicidal acts is somehow “blaming the victim”: How can women be responsible for their own deaths when they are forced to do it?  Evaluating the rationality of sticking a coat hanger up your crotch to solve your problem is considered misogynistic. Since women are universally recognized as vulnerable when they are pregnant (and most women have experienced that vulnerability) then whatever they do to solve that vulnerability must be okay. Desperation and powerlessness legitimize taking the life of a human being. When a woman is pregnant, penniless and alone, what else is she supposed to do but find a way to end the pregnancy?

The challenge for pro-lifers then is not just to prove that the unborn are human beings and that killing them is wrong. Besides doing that, pro-lifers must engage on the issue of feminism and dismantle the web of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the dignity of women can only be upheld if they are allowed to kill their unborn children.

I think if pro-lifers were to hold debates about women, then the feminists would have no choice BUT to engage. When the discussion is about fetuses, feminists think they can ignore it. It’s all “fetus focus fallacy” and who gives a crap if fetuses die? But when feminism itself is directly challenged, they can’t afford to ignore it. Their very principles that are at stake. They cannot allow them to be challenged in the public square, otherwise it would undermine their whole cause, not just abortion itself.

Until feminist ideas are refuted systematically, then the arguments about the unborn being persons will always be interpreted through the feminist prism and they will be discarded as irrelevant by large numbers of people. Only when core feminist principles are challenged will they feel the need to respond and engage. And then we can show that feminist principles are not tenable. And once this is done, then we can make the argument for the legal protection of the unborn child.

OB\GYN says: abortion is never necessary

Dr. Frank:

First, it is argued women’s lives are endangered by abortions simply because they are illegal. Once legalized (as in the U.S. today), the next baseless claim is that women’s lives are endangered because some doctors refuse to perform these now legal abortions. In other words, we are supposed to believe that the mere legalization of abortion immediately transforms this violent procedure from one that kills women to one that women will die without! Furthermore, we are frequently challenged with absurd claims that refraining from direct abortions will result in “a woman bleeding out from a uterine rupture, or going into shock from sepsis following a miscarriage.” Such statements betray not only profound ignorance of obstetric medicine but also a reliance on dishonest fear mongering to push a militant pro-abortion dogma.

The Quebec Archbishop Gets It

This article about Archbishop Gerald Lacroix of Quebec City features a number of excellent quotes. Such as:

“We’ve been shy lately, laid back,” he said. “Society’s done a good job of pushing us back into our churches and sacristies, telling us you don’t have anything to bring to our society, that’s your thing, it’s personal.”

“We need to live our faith in the midst of world and bring the light of Christ to all sectors of society whether it be education, politics, health, you name it, we need to be there.”

“We’re not out there to win votes, not out there to be reelected, not out there for public opinion, we’re there sent out by Christ and his Church to be witnesses of the Good News.

“We need to be that,” he said. “Sometimes it’s very costly, sometimes its hurts, but that’s what it is.”

And:

When he became Quebec archbishop last February, he said journalists asked him, “You’re a young man, a young bishop, how are you going to adapt the Gospel so it will be receivable by today’s modern men and women?”

“I don’t think it’s the Gospel we need to adapt,” he said. “It’s our lives that we need adapt to be faithful to the Gospel. “

I'm waiting for him to say something that will make the crap hit the fan in the Quebec media, Catholic or secular. When he makes such a statement, I will know he means it.

New Ministry for Abortion Workers Being Planned

Abby Johnson writes:

When a clinic worker decides to leave the abortion industry, it is usually because they suddenly realize they have been living, believing and speaking a lie. They have been betrayed. They have betrayed others. It is a terrible feeling. I can’t think of any feeling that is worse. You thought you were the good guy. Now you realize you were the enemy all along. So, these workers now have to put their trust in a group of people who they have been taught, over and over again, was their enemy…pro-lifers. They take their first leap of faith and ask for help.

Hopefully, they find a group of pro-lifers that are ready and willing to help. Hopefully, this group of pro-lifers will get them in contact with people that can help them get a job, get them on the pathway to spiritual and emotional healing, or get them in contact with someone who can help. But what is the clinic workers biggest fear? MONEY. How will they support their family? How will they pay their mortgage, buy groceries, pay doctor bills, pay for utilities? These are REAL issues that must be addressed.

It is incredibly unfair for the pro-life movement to say things like, “just take a leap of faith and God will provide for you.” Really? Most hard core Christians I know wouldn’t take that sort of leap. And now you are asking someone who is probably new to the concept of God to take that kind of leap. Not fair. And quite honestly, it is kind of irresponsible. They do need to have a backup plan in place. You can’t just jump without a safety net. That would be foolish. If you had never walked a tightrope before, you would want a net underneath you, right? Well, these people have never (or have not in a long time) walked with God…they need a net under them.

Here’s where the problem comes. There is no net. There is actually nothing for clinic workers. No ministry. Nothing. We have hundreds of ministries for women who have had abortions, we have pregnancy centers, but nothing for those that have actually been inside the clinics themselves.

I'd never thought of that before.

We should do something like that in Canada. We should create a system where we find employment for abortion clinic workers. Not to mention spiritual healing.

And then maybe we should have people on Parliament Hill with a sign saying "I regret doing abortions".

BC Privacy and Information Commissioner Says Abortion Blackout is Below Standards

Details at Stop FOI Censorship.

Planned Parenthood is soooooo hard up

Says Abortion Gang guest poster ninersgal

Here’s the scoop: if PPFA didn’t spend so much money on fancy pink posters and snazzy T-shirts, they might not need to shake the money tree so often. How about asking for money to fund abortions, rather than political lobbying? Oh wait . . . that’s the job of your local abortion fund.

If PPFA does not get your tax dollars, women will die I tell ya!

VIDEO: Abortion Pill - Fact Not Opinion

If abortion clinics told you all the information about medical abortion:

VIDEO: Study shows fetuses don't like hip-hop

Okay maybe not. But I thought this was interesting

It's time to end the crusade against bottled water

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Water Bottle Derangement Syndrome?

It's time for a Sun News Viewer Pride Parade

Adrian McNair writes:

Ok, I’ll admit it. I’ve started watching Sun News Network. But I haven’t watched any news or “straight talk”. Just the comedy show hosted by Ezra Levant called The Source.

That's like saying you read Playboy for the articles.

Sure enough, in the comments he says:

I find a lot of the other shows a bit of a turnoff except for Adler

All the cool kids are doing it, Adrian. Come out of the closet!

You'll warm up to the others. It's just a matter of time.

Ezra Levant is my favourite show. I'm paying a higher cable bill because of him.

Pius XII’s Secret Network to Save Jews

He created a clandestine effort to save Jews in Rome.

Calgary woman charged with attempted murder after baby found in dumpster

Unfortunately, there's a good chance she'll be convicted of infanticide and she'll walk.

What? It's a post-natal abortion. She should not have to put up with "forced motherhood"? /sarcasm

Junk feminism

My new favourite expression.

A quote from Rosario Murillo, wife of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, about feminism:

Their values represent the Old Society, exclusive, unjust, and impoverishing… where men and women…prefer to raise pets instead of children, and depopulate and disharmonize the Earth.

This is junk feminism, and furthermore, as I already said, it is in the hands of women who neither live as women, nor know the feminine soul, individual or collective. They ignore our daily battles; they are not the flesh and bone of a woman. They have no family ties or stable affections; they disdain those blessed ties of unconditional affection, indispensible for healthy human development.

They don’t admit that women opt for routes that are constructive for women, with an inclusive conscience, a maternal instinct, and a sense of family, of a couple, and of human brotherhood. They do not accept that men and women believe in a different future, and that we work together, creating the indispensable difference between today and tomorrow.

Study asks: Will Changes in Gay Men's Sexual Behavior Reduce Syphilis Rates?

Interesting:

METHODS:

: We developed an agent-based stochastic model to examine syphilis transmission among a population of gay men, representative of gay men in Australia. This model was used to explore the potential impact of changes in sexual behavior over 1 month, 3 month, and indefinite time frames on syphilis epidemics.

RESULTS:

: Simulations of interventions showed that short-term reductions in rates of partner change and increased condom use would have negligible impact on the long-term trends of syphilis epidemics. If no interventions are introduced, then the model forecasts that the syphilis prevalence in the population could continue to rise, with an increase of 80% in the number of men infected with syphilis during the next decade. However, if changes in sexual behavior are maintained in the long-term, then syphilis epidemics can be mitigated. If condom use is sustained at 80% in partnerships that are HIV discordant or of unknown status, then the prevalence of syphilis is estimated to decrease by 9% over 10 years. Similarly, if partner acquisition rates decrease by 25%, then there will be a 22% reduction in syphilis prevalence.

So let's go over that. If 80% of the serodiscordant couples (and I use that word loosely) use condoms, then syphilis will still increase by 9% over 10 years. So if all that effort is deployed to get 80% of couples to use condoms (a very high number) then there will still be a lot of syphilis cases.

Well, it's better than no improvements, and it's certainly better than the 80% increase, you say.

That's still ninety thousand cases in a population of 1 million over a period of ten years. That's a heckuva a lot of people who are not saved by condoms.

And fewer partners reduces the number of cases by 22%. That's still peanuts.

CONCLUSIONS:

: Interventions promoting partner reduction or increased condom use would be ineffective in the short-term, and would have limited prospects for success in the long-term unless very large changes in behavior are sustained. Complementary social research indicates that such long-term changes in behavior are unlikely to be adopted, and therefore other intervention strategies need to be developed to reduce syphilis among gay men.

Source:

Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Dec;38(12):1151-8.
Will Changes in Gay Men's Sexual Behavior Reduce Syphilis Rates?
Gray RT, Hoare A, McCann PD, Bradley J, Down I, Donovan B, Prestage G, Wilson DP.
Source

From the *Kirby Institute for Immunity Infection and Society, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; and †Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

RELATED:

Would gay men change their sexual behavior to reduce syphilis rates?

RESULTS:

: One quarter of survey respondents (26%) indicated that they would be highly likely to reduce partner acquisition rates in order to reduce their chances of syphilis infection. However, among the 475 (21%) men who reported greater than 10 partners in the previous 6 months, only 11% indicated being "highly likely" to reduce partner numbers to avoid syphilis. Among 606 (26%) survey respondents who reported not always using condoms in the previous 6 months, 34% indicated being highly likely to always use condoms with casual partners to avoid syphilis. In the focus groups, men indicated little commitment to sexual behavior change but some willingness to consider short-term changes to reduce community syphilis levels.

CONCLUSIONS:

: Interventions promoting partner reduction or increased condom use are unlikely to be adopted on a long-term basis by men at greatest risk. Behavioral interventions alone are unlikely to materially contribute to syphilis prevention among gay men.

Here's the deal: as long as men have no prospect of having children, and don't have to cater to women and their desires for intimacy, generally speaking, they will engage in promiscuous activity. This is a no-brainer. It's the nature of men. Throw in rampant drug use (which is very common among gays), and you have a recipe for an epidemic of STD's.

But don't listen to a social conservative. Do your own thing. Learn the hard way.

Update

Hello Loyal Readers.

Sorry for the lack of posting. I learned that my grandmother died on Sunday and I am planning on attending the funeral out of town. I am busy preparing for that. Her name is Audrey. Please pray for her.

I also learned that the hard drive on my desktop is kaput and that I will have seek advanced data recovery to extract the family pictures. I'm also hoping for the kids' home movies, although I'm a bit pessimistic about that. I also would like to recover my poetry and at least one of my major projects. I will look to that next week.

Blogging may be light.

Why some pro-choicers do not show up at abortion debates

Last week, Stephanie Gray of the CCBR participated in a debate at the University of Ottawa. The pro-choicer who agreed to debate did so at the last minute.

So why don't poor-choicers like to debate?

As one pro-choicer put it "they are talking about fetuses and we are talking about women's and people's bodily integrity."

Also "you really have to be in the right head space and feeling good that day as lots of of it can be triggering ."

Triggering? Abortion is triggering? Oh really? I thought it was supposed to solve one's problems, not create more...

I suggest in the future that pro-lifers hold a debate entitled "Are fetal rights compatible with women's bodily autonomy and integrity"?

So then they won't have an excuse. We will talk about women's bodily autonomy and integrity.

I suspect though that the poor-choice side doesn't want to debate fetuses though. I think their attitude towards fetuses is neatly summed up by Joyce Arthur's quip: fetuses are not that important.
 

For you pro-life pagans out there

A facebook page for pro-life pagans.

Study: A Fetus Can Sense Mom’s Psychological State

QUOTE:

“We believe that the human fetus is an active participant in its own development and is collecting information for life after birth,” Sandman says. “It’s preparing for life based on messages the mom is providing.”

Liberal reaction to the Duggars' latest pregnancy

From the comments section in this WaPo column:

Without meaning any offense to anyone, i find these people tiresome, ill-informed and just plain selfish. I consider myself educated, highly environmentally friendly and considerate of the earth and others, not to say that these folks are, but to think that these 20 human beings will require diapers, clothing, food, and housing, not to mention the gas required to shuttle the clan to and fro, they use as much energy as perhaps 100 (or more) third world denizens do, it is just not fair and they should put a stop to this! They love children so much then why don't they adopt a deserving child, as there are so many in this country and the world.

If you love the planet so much, why don't you kill yourself?

Oh wait, you're entitled to live on this planet, but there's no room for anyone else.

...

People, think! The Duggars are not financially independent. Who do you think paid the hundreds of thousands of dollars in neonatal intensive care for their last ill-advised pregnancy, and for the ongoing medical expenses of that disabled child? Even if they have medical insurance, do you not understand that insurance rates for the rest of us are so high because we are subsidizing over-users like the Duggars?

Don't have kids or else my insurance rates will go up!

Here's a clue: if everyone did what the Duggars did, it would bring a huge boost to the economy and you wouldn't care about your insurance rates.

...

The world's resources are finite. We already have problems feeding, providing medical care, and finding potable water for the people already in existence.

Pollution and overfishing have destroyed much of the formerly abundant life in our bays, rivers, and oceans. Wildlife is rapidly going extinct due to loss of habitat. Arable land for growing crops is shrinking as our overburdened cities expand. We are suffering from global warming that may have already reached a tipping poi...See Morent. Our air is barely breathable.

It is highly irresponsible, given these conditions, to breed like rabbits.

Human ingenuity is infinite. That's why we have not suffered a mass die-off globally in spite of the supposed "finite resources".

People like this make me want to have more kids just to piss them off. Don't like me breeding? Just watch me!

Poll finds Canadians want to kill the pain, not the patient

For Immediate Release

November 8, 2011



Poll finds Canadians want to kill the pain, not the patient

Canadians want improved access to end of life care, but worry about the impact of legalized euthanasia on the elderly, according to a new poll. The Environics poll found 95% of respondents want the government to make palliative and hospice care for the dying a high (66%) or medium (29%) priority.

Studies show fewer than a third of Canadians have good access to palliative care, which can provide pain relief, emotional and comfort care, and relief of suffering at the end of life

In contrast to the strong support for palliative care, three-quarters of those polled worry that legalizing euthanasia could worsen the growing social problem of elder abuse. Large majorities in all areas of the country express concern that elderly persons in abusive situations would be pressured to consent to euthanasia. Women (78%) are more likely than men (73%) to be concerned.

The federal government’s definition of elder abuse was used in the poll: “abusive or controlling behaviour a person in a position of trust - such as a family member of caregiver - that causes an older adult physical or emotional harm of loss of property or assets.”

The large poll sample of 2,000 Canadians, conducted in September for LifeCanada, has a margin of error of +/- 2.2% 19 times out of 20.

In the poll 74% also said they worry that if the law against euthanasia changed, a significant number of elderly, sick and disabled persons would actually be euthanized without their consent. An overwhelming majority - 82% - opposed legalizing euthanasia when the patient does not consent. Of those 64% are strongly opposed.

“Legalized euthanasia will bring us something no one wants - killing without consent,” said LifeCanada president Monica Roddis. “Holland and Belgium have shown that. They start out legalizing it only with consent, then slide into doing it without consent on those whose quality of life is considered low. And the excuses for taking a patient’s life keep expanding: the Dutch Medical Association now accepts loneliness as a criterion.”

“We sincerely hope that our Canadian concern for the elderly and weaker members of society will prevent us from opening the door to medicalized killing.”

“As a country we need to focus on killing the pain, not the one in pain,” Roddis said. “That’s what good palliative care can do. It’s a travesty that it is not more accessible to all Canadians.”


- 30 -

Contacts: Monica Roddis, President, 604-853-7985

Peter Ryan, Board Member, 506-459-8990

Thank You Personhood Mississippi

You probably know the news by now-- the Mississippi Personhood Amendment was defeated.

I simply wanted to say to those who put it on the ballot: thank you.

Because it wasn't a complete loss.

Because of your efforts, fetal personhood got on the radar here in Canada. It meant that people had to confront the issue of the right to life. For this I am grateful.

Don't be discouraged. It took three tries to get a partial birth abortion ban passed.

Jesus had to go through the crucifixion and all the defeat that it represented before he was resurrected on the third day. This is not even close to a crucifixion.

Brian Mulroney on the CBC

I finally got around to reading Peter C. Newman's The Secret Mulroney Tapes. I know, I'm about five years late on this, but it's still an excellent read. I've laughed out loud at many of the anecdotes.

As you may know, the pundits at Sun News have it in for the CBC, especially Ezra Levant. Not to mention some of the Members of Parliament. I thought some of Mulroney's comments about the CBC were interesting, given the present context. It also shows how little has changed since his time there.

Believe it or not, I’m a supporter of public broadcasting: witness what I did giving rise to Newsworld, building the new headquarters for the CBC in Toronto and all of these things. However, you’ve got to be right out of your mind to think that the CBC is a public broadcaster-- this is a private broadcaster, and it’s being broadcast for the benefit of the CBC. It’s conducted for the benefit of the employees of the CBC, not for Canadians.

If the CBC’s new headquarters were burned to the ground tonight by a group of CBC employees, the union would grieve to prevent the police from making an enquiry of any of the employees, lest it violate their professional integrity under the collective agreement. You’d never find out who burned the goddamned place down because nobody is responsible for anything at the CBC.

…

The only thing you hear about me, every night, is that the “unpopular Mulroney government” is cutting back on the CBC, which is bullsh*t. I never cut. I saved the goddamned thing. I’m the one who kept the money going for the CBC. They increased their grant from $800 million to $1.1 billion when I was there.

One of the running themes in the book is that Mulroney always tried to be a nice guy to everyone, and he got stabbed in the back for it. This CBC anecdote is one example. He raised the grant to the CBC, and they just treated him and his government like a sack of manure.

Let this be an object lesson to conservatives: being nice to your political opponents, expecting that they will appreciate what you done for them, never works. Don't try to pander to groups with whom you have nothing in common. Mulroney did it as a matter of course and look what happened to him.

Also: kill the CBC while you still can.

They couldn't even destigmatize abortion in Russia

Remember atheist Russia, where priests were killed and religious people were regularly persecuted for their faith?

The stigma of abortion never even died out there.

I knew this day would come: Smoking Pot is a Human Right

A Vancouver man will appear in Federal Court on Tuesday arguing for an exemption to the drug laws because they infringe on his constitutional freedom of religion to smoke his sacred weed - marijuana.

...

While reading about the first Gulf War in 1990 high on pot, Bennett says he had an epiphany: "Divine information-filled light entered my being leaving me with the strong intuitive knowledge and belief that cannabis was the Tree of Life described at the end of the Book of Revelation."

That must've been some good stuff. That's why we ban it.

This is why we need the natural law. But since we've given up on any notion of objective truth, we can't use our own common sense to discern bogus religious claims from reasonable ones.

H/T: The Lynch List

Vatican and Pharmaceutical Company to Host Stem Cell Conference

I'm glad they're raising awareness about adult stem cells, but is it such a good idea for the Vatican to team up with a pharmaceutical company? Wouldn't this set a bad precedent? I'd hate for big business to team up with the Vatican and organize other marketing-savvy for-profit conferences. It could eventually taint the Church's moral authority.

Why abortion will never be destigmatized

An abstract from a Danish study:

This study aimed to provide knowledge about attitudes towards abortion among Danish physicians in training in the specialties of obstetrics/gynecology and clinical genetics. The study was a questionnaire survey among trainees in these specialties. Ninety-six responded. Trainees in clinical genetics were more pro-abortion than those in obstetrics/gynecology (p = 0.04). Of the respondents 30% versus 48% found working with early and late abortions unpleasant. Nearly half agreed to having chosen their specialty despite having to counsel and treat women having abortions. Twenty-one percent agreed that working with late abortion affected their job satisfaction negatively. Those agreeing to the above statements had a tendency towards lower pro-abortion scores than those being indifferent or disagreeing, but the differences were not significant. A substantial fraction of physicians in training have negative feelings associated with abortion-related work and require support in handling and coping with these challenges.

Any way you square it, abortion sucks.

It sucks for the unborn. It sucks for the client. It sucks for the medical profession, unless you happen to have no functioning conscience and are just in it for the money.

They know full well abortion takes a human life. That's why it will never be destigmatized.

Bishop Conley sees ‘atheocracy’ as major threat to pro-life cause

“America today is becoming what I would call an atheocracy — a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers. And I might add — the faith that our society is most hostile toward is Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.”

The problem is that most clergy aren't doing squat to fight the problem. A lot of them are the useful idiots of those who are establishing that "atheocratic" political order. Talking about God in the public square is too "fundamentalist", notwithstanding that that's their job description.

There may come a time when we convince people that the unborn are human beings and persons. But abortion still continues, because people don't give a s*** if it's true. How else would you explain the fact that there are countries in the world whose constitutions recognize the unborn as people, and protect the right to life from conception, but abortion is still permitted (i.e. not prosecuted).

Jews and Catholics threatened by Islamist Fanatics says Archbishop

I would also add: atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus and frankly anyone else who opposes Sharia.

Vatican Cardinal to Priests: your sermons are BOOOOORING!

Thank you thank you thank you Cardinal Ravasi for telling it like it is.


He also says: 

“Too many priests employ theological language that is grey, dull and flavourless. Instead they should spice up their sermons with graphic stories contained in the Bible which use much more forceful imagery.


I also got a quote from the French:

Selon l'AFP, le cardinal italien a invité les prédicateurs à prendre en compte les nouveaux langages pour capter l'attention des fidèles et aussi à ne pas craindre "le scandale" que crée la parole de la Bible. "Nous devons retrouver cette dimension de la parole qui offense, qui inquète, qui juge", a-t-il affirmé.

In English: Preachers should not be afraid of the scandal created by the Bible. We must rediscover that aspect of the word that offends, worries and judges.

In other words, preachers should not be afraid of telling it like it is.

Oh THANK YOU.

How many boring, lifeless, insipid sermons have I and the vast majority of Catholics sat through? What we are really dying for is deep, trenchant and theologically substantial homelies full of facts, references to the Fathers, Papal teaching and orthodox scriptural research

There's a reason why Catholics turn to their computers for spiritual guidance, away from priests and other "professional Catholics". They are not delivering the goods.

Stephanie Gray in Ottawa

A few upcoming noteworthy events in Ottawa.

Stephanie Gray will be in Ottawa this week.

Thursday November 10th 7:00 pm at St. Paul's University 223 Main St. in Room 103. The theme of her lecture is abortion and intellectual honesty. Hosted by St. Paul's Students for Life.

Friday November 11th 7:00 pm at University of Ottawa, Site Building, STE A0150. Hosted by Physicians for Life and uOttawa Med Students for Life

"I regret my IVF"

I WAS too old when I had my baby, says IVF mum aged 61


Watch for the feminists to call her a hypocrite for having changed her mind after the fact. Arguments about sincerity and consistency are often all they have left when they can't deal with the substance of the issues.

Abortion Toy On Sale in Kazakhstan

Merry Christmas!

The gruesome playthings appear to imitate an abortion or miscarriage, an Interfax report said: “A plastic keg-shaped box contains a human embryo in red liquid. If the cover of the container opens, the embryo falls out together with [a] sticky mucus.”

Look at the bright side: the kids will know what an abortion is.

(Who the frick dreamed that up?)

Abortionist pleads guilty to murder

It bears repeating: abortion is a shady business..

If you'd kill a baby in the womb, it's not much of a leap to kill one out of the womb.

Sarah Palin speaks my mind

Re: Occupying Wall Street:


"When it first kind of got off the ground... I looked at it as thinking, well these folks, they feel legitimate indignation about the Wall Street bailouts -- financial institutions behaving recklessly, and then we get stuck with the bill... many of us still quite ticked off about it all, because we don't have assurances that those who caused the financial collapse in the first place... are being held accountable and that it won't happen again."

She said though the movement may have begun in earnest, positions have evolved, and its organizers have drawn the wrong conclusions. Of the protesters, she said, "They say, 'Wall Street 'fat cats' got a bailout, so now I want one too,' and the correct answer is, 'No one is entitled to a bailout.'"

...

"The American dream, our foundation, is about work ethic and empowerment, not entitlement," she said. " In fact, the nation's dividing line today is how you answer this question: Are you entitled to other people's money? The Wall Street crony capitalists, the Obama Administration, the leftist politicos, big union bosses and the occupiers, they all say, 'Yes!' The rest of America says, 'No!'"

You would think that the left would be dying to financially cut off corporate welfare bums everywhere.

The thing is, these corporate welfare bums employ lots of people, including unions. If they get cut off, people will be thrown out of work. Unions will be weakened.

When you make people dependent on government money that's what happens. People don't want to stop the gravy train, even if they know it's wrong on some level.

H/T: Texans for Sarah Palin

VIDEO: It's time to scream about Islam says Michael Coren

*** APPLAUSE ***

H/T: Blazing Catfur

Organ harvesting: what about "my body my choice"?

If someone wants your organs, bodily autonomy goes right out the window.

Don't worry, though. They'll make sure it won't hurt when they slice you open. Because all that matters is that you don't know about it and that you don't suffer, right?

IMPORTANT PRO-LIFE ACTION ITEM FOR ONTARIO!

An Ontario government agency is recommending that abortion become a core hospital service, and that late-term abortion sites be set up in Ontario.

We must not allow this to happen.

It is important that the Minister of Health know about our opposition before the legislature sits.

So please email Health Minister Deb Matthews and express your opposition to the notion of abortion being a core hospital service.

We have to raise some controversy. If we don't create a storm of opposition, it will embolden them to do even more.

Tell the Health Minister to spend our tax dollars on medical care that saves lives.

And please-- don't send nasty letters when you write. Be polite and courteous.

Looking like a jerk does not help our cause.

Now pass on this action item. Email it, post it on facebook, tweet it.

If you really do want abortion defunded, we have to start vocally oppositing it NOW.

Why abortion is still funded in Ontario

I know that the polls say that Ontarians don't want abortion to be funded.

But these polls don't reveal the whole picture.

The headline today on LSN:

Make abortion ‘core’ hospital service, designate later-term abortion sites, urges Ontario report

This could become a reality in spite of the opposition.

Why?

Here's a concept I hope pro-lifers learn: saliency.

It's not enough that a large number of people support a measure. It's a good start, but its not enough.

Saliency measures the depth of support for a measure, and how much people care about an issue.

Opposition to abortion funding is a mile wide and an inch deep in Ontario.

That's why abortion is still funded. That's why there is no protection to the unborn.

We can tout opposition to abortion all we like. If people are not prepared to act on their convictions, it's pointless.

So what we need to do now, is not only convince people, but make people care about abortion funding and the rights of the unborn.

We have to tap into political psychology so that we can find the right strategy not only to convince people about fetal rights but to move them to act accordingly, especially at the ballot box.

If you do not want this to become a reality, then I suggest you contact the government.

ECHO:
Pat Campbell, CEO
Ph: (416) 597-9687 ext. 226
Webform E-mail (http://www.echo-ontario.ca./content/pat-campbell).

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Ph: (866) 532-3161
Webform E-mail (http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/).

Send a letter by snail mail to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care:
ServiceOntario
M-1B114, Macdonald Block
900 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M7A 1N3 Canada

Update

My schedule is becoming more stable, so I will be able to approve comments once a day.

However, if I feel "the gloves are coming off" in the discussion, I may not publish your comment. I do not have time for contentious discussions. Please continue to disagree if you must, but if the discussion becomes heated and personal, don't expect the relevant comments to be published.

The truth about the poor

Quoting Maggie's Farm via FFF:

The poor often do not have good health stats because they do not take care of themselves, and are often stuck in bad circumstances because they do not function reliably or behave respectfully in the world.

Canada's Abortion Lobby Says There is Nothing to Debate

Okay, you can stay out of the debate, then.

Pro-lifers, if you want a debate then you must provoke the debate.

The way to provoke debate is not to demand one, but simply make your case.

If you make your case, then you will then have a debate. You do not need the Abortion lobby to do so, and frankly, if they stay out of it, it's just as well.

Pregnant inmate put in solitary on bread and water for refusing ‘early induction’

Is this true?

This is something out of the Holocaust era: a diet of bread and water? WTF?

Who is the minister responsible for this? This should be investigated.

And another question: people get lesser sentences for greater crimes. How do you get sentenced to eight months hard time for pretending to be a nurse when you had the credentials to be a nurse in your home country?

There's gotta be more to this story than meets the eye. You can get a late-term abortion if you're a criminal, but you can't give birth at term with a proper diet?

Justin Trudeau upset over questioning of adherence to Catholic faith

I feel a little sorry for him.

Trudeau père had the benefit of a top-notch Catholic education.

The same cannot be said for Trudeau fils.

"For someone to start questioning my own faith and accusing me of being a bad Catholic, is something that I really take issue with. My own personal faith is an extremely important part of who I am and the values that I try to lead with."

Trudeau added that neither he nor his father saw any incongruity between enshrining the rights of gays and lesbians, for example, and the tenets of Catholicism. He notes that he is personally very opposed to abortion, but still believes nobody can tell a woman what she should do with her body.

But then, a Catholic has the duty to stand up for the poor and oppressed, Justin. The unborn are the poor and oppressed. They are as much entitled to rights as anyone else, certain the right to the care of their parents, and the right not to be killed.

I hope we continue this conversation. Trudeau is one guy we really need to set straight. Trudeau père is dead and has gone to his reward. We cannot hope to convert him. But should we convert Trudeau fils, that would be the next best thing.

French satirical newspaper firebombed after prophet Mohammed announcement

But Muslims pose no threat whatsoever to Western values.

Look, I'm not the kind of person to think there's a jihadi under the bed.

But you can't deny that there is violent Islamist agitation in the Western World, and that it needs to be addressed.

Muslims crying "Islamophobia!" don't help things. They need to get their act together, collectively speaking. Either they have to accept Western values-- that people have a right to say what they think-- or else they risk being marginalized or worse.

Actually, I think Muslims know better than anyone else this is a problem because a number of them confront it every day. They are often the biggest victims of extremists who can't live and let live. It's the official Muslims and the crybabies who are the problem. Not to mention the leftist multiculturalists who keep trying to sweep this stuff under the carpet.

Feminist shocked that mothers are marginalized among feminists

Newsflash: as long as you making female biology, and therefore reproduction, the problem, then parenting will be marginalized.

Feminists can't say: women have to be able to be like men, then expect women to be supported when they don't act like men. If parenting is what hinders women-- and it can, as it's practically impossible to have many children and be a CEO-- then don't be surprised if mothers are marginalized. They are the problem. They hinder the cause of "women" in the collective.

I understand that feminists want their cake and eat it, too. They want all reproductive choices to be supported, and they want the advancement of women. They want women to earn as much as men, to be as successful in the workforce as men, and to be as powerful as men.

But it doesn't work that way.

When you have kids, your relationship with people and with society changes, and no sense of entitlement will ever change that reality. You are saddled with kids, so to speak. Kids are wonderful. Having kids is extremely beneficial for society. But it doesn't bring home the bacon, it doesn't give you seniority, it won't advance you in your career and it won't give you any political power of any sort, at least in the short term. You have a responsibility that takes up time, energy and resources that will not be devoted to efforts outside the home. This totally puts you at a disadvantage with men.

It doesn't mean that you, individually, cannot succeed in your chosen field. It means that you might have to wait until your childbearing is over. It could mean that you'll have a career first for 10 or 15 years, then "retire". It might mean you that you need a Grandma in your life to help raise the children when you work. Or you might have to work part time.

Men do not have these concerns.That's why they are at a distinct advantage, and-- brace  yourselves-- always will be.

Smart feminists realize that. At least they realize that's the status quo. Their only problem is that their values are skewed. Childbearing is a problem for them. In their purview women MUST be equal to men in every single way possible, whether women want it or not, otherwise, women suffer from injustice. Childbearing hinders that advancement.

This is why motherhood and its issues are marginalized among feminists.

And I haven't even begun to touch the women-as-mothers meme that feminists hate so much.

Feminists have not come to terms with female biology. That's why they are such ardent supporters of abortion. They are at war with the way women are made.

Study reveals why people have concurent sexual partnerships

Posted FYI. Formatted for easier reading:

Partner concurrency (i.e., overlapping sexual partnerships) facilitates the spread of STDs, including HIV. The present study explored the context of and motivations for partner concurrency among patients recruited from an urban STD clinic. Eight focus groups were conducted with 59 patients (47% women; 77% African American).

Qualitative analyses revealed five motivational themes related to the occurrence of concurrent partnerships for men and women. Participants reported these partnerships tend to occur:

• when people believe that sexual partners are unfaithful or cannot be trusted;
  
  
• when sexual satisfaction is low;
  
  
• when patients report the need for different partners to fulfill multiple needs;
  
  
• in retaliation for a partner's concurrency;
  
  
• and when people wish to maintain a sexual relationship with an ex-partner who is the parent of a shared child.
  
  Four additional themes unique to men were identified. Men reported that they had multiple partners because this practice supports their sense of masculinity and is consistent with familial modeling and community norms, and because having multiple partners is "in a man's nature." Men also mentioned that the imbalance in the number of women-to-men in their sexual network facilitates partner concurrency. These findings can help prevention practitioners and researchers to develop interventions to reduce risk associated with partner concurrency.

Charges dropped against Carleton U. Pro-lifers!

Still, I think it's a pyrrhic victory to have the charges dropped a year later close to the day they would have been prosecuted:

On October 4, 2010, members of Carleton Lifeline, a pro-life club at Carleton University, were arrested for attempting to peacefully display the Genocide Awareness Project, an exhibit which compares abortion to other forms of genocide. The University deemed the Genocide Awareness Project to be “offensive” and directed the Ottawa Police Service to arrest and charge four Carleton University tuition-paying students and a Queen’s University student with trespassing. The charges were scheduled to proceed to trial today and tomorrow (November 2nd, 2011).

The Crown stated that the basis for withdrawing the trespass charges is that the issues dealing with the relationship between a university and its students was already being dealt with in Lobo et al. v. Carleton University et al., the civil action brought by two Carleton Lifeline members, Ruth (Lobo) Shaw and John McLeod, against Carleton University and members of its administration.

Most people overestimate number of priests guilty of child abuse

But no one ever accuses them of cathophobia.

Conservatism: it's a physiological disposition... says study

No.

Still, a mildly amusing abstract that I'm surprised was taken seriously enough to be published:

Disgust has been described as the most primitive and central of emotions. Thus, it is not surprising that it shapes behaviors in a variety of organisms and in a variety of contexts-including homo sapien politics. People who believe they would be bothered by a range of hypothetical disgusting situations display an increased likelihood of displaying right-of-center rather than left-of-center political orientations. Given its primal nature and essential value in avoiding pathogens disgust likely has an effect even without registering in conscious beliefs. In this article, we demonstrate that individuals with marked involuntary physiological responses to disgusting images, such as of a man eating a large mouthful of writhing worms, are more likely to self-identify as conservative and, especially, to oppose gay marriage than are individuals with more muted physiological responses to the same images. This relationship holds even when controlling for the degree to which respondents believe themselves to be disgust sensitive and suggests that people's physiological predispositions help to shape their political orientations.