G8 and Maternal Health

Finally, a little common sense and clarity from the Government.Can't quite say the same for the opposition.

The Federal government is spearheading a program to improve maternal and child health in the third world. I'm not sure of the details, but I bet most people aren't either. The Opposition is making such a big stink about abortion funding not being in a program to protect maternal and child health, that everything else gets drowned out. Maybe it would help them to read the dictionary a little:
- Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
- Termination: the action of bringing something or coming to an end
- Pregnancy: the condition or period of being pregnant
- Pregnant: having a child or young developing in the uterus

Those were taken from the dictionary application on my computer (Dictionary, v. 1.0.2, copyright Apple Computers Inc, 2005)

So, I'm not sure how "abortion" and "maternal and child health" can even be in the same sentence. But that's a debate for another time.

Back to the CBC article. The writer suggests the Conservatives, by not including abortion, are going against what they said last month about not "closing doors on any options, including contraception." Well, let's pull out the dictionary again:

contraception, noun. the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
conception, noun. the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.

So, by my reading, the Conservatives are in the clear here. Abortion is not a form of contraception because conception has already happened. How can you prevent pregnancy if your already pregnant? Huh. You can still include all forms of contraception in a policy without including abortion.

Well, what does Mr. Bob Rae (Liberal) have to say about this?

"They just reopened the abortion debate," Rae told reporters outside the House of Commons. "We are saying to the countries that are the poorest: 'We won't apply the law that we have in Canada.'"

Actually, Bob, we CAN'T apply the law we have in Canada because THERE IS NO LAW. That's right, no law on abortion in Canada. Abortion is legal anytime, from conception until birth. One could actually see the baby coming out and kill him/her, and get off scot free with no charges (partial birth abortion). That's where we're at odds with other G8 nations.

We are the only developed country in the world that has no law whatsoever in regards to abortion. I wonder if THAT position will cause problems with other G8 members.

Does anyone else see the irony when Mr. Paul Dewar (NDP) says: "It's just unusual to see the ignorance of a government that claims to be a member of the G8"??

Copenhagen Smokinhagen Part 2

The Copenhagen summit did not meet it's goal of a worldwide agreement to fight "climate change"... maybe because not everyone agrees?? Just found a good article in The Daily Mail about what I mentioned last post. From the article:

The Copenhagen summit, supposed to produce an agreement limiting greenhouse gases, has, according to experts, the same carbon footprint as a medium-sized African country such as Malawi.

There are an amazing 34,000 delegates attending the event, and the grander among them are forced, says my colleague Robert Hardman in Copenhagen, to park their private jets in Norway because Denmark has run out of Tarmac, and to procure their gas-guzzling limousines from Germany.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1236497/STEPHEN-GLOVER-50-days-save-world-I-listen-doomsayers-werent-ludicrous-hypocrites.html#ixzz0aPDgWvVB

So what are we to make of all the fuss? Time to start walking the talk.

Copenhagen Smokinhagen

So the largest ever climate conference finished up, and all they came up with was a document saying "we'll take note" and might do something about it?!???

Let me get this straight. How many days, and how many delegates (and assistants, and assistants to the assistants of the delegates), and private jets, and motorcades, and heated hotel rooms, and purified water in plastic bottles (made thanks to the oil sands, by the way! but they should clean up their act too), and at the end of it all:

"Climate change?"
"Yah."
"Well wha' do ya wanna do?"
"I don't know, wha' do you wanna do?"
"I don't know. Hey, now don't start tha' game again."

(remember the vultures from the Jungle Book cartoon???)

Here's a thought: why don't we start living responsibly?? You know, shut off extra lights, waste less, car pool (or plane-pool for those big wigs), give to charity, and maybe ask for a little corporate responsibility...

Oh, right. We're in a morally relativistic society. I can't tell you what to do, because what's right for me isn't necessarily right for you.

Garbage. A bunch of garbage. And smoke. In Copenhagen. Smokinhagen. Unfortunately, garbage is one thing we're not short of.

Abortion in Alberta... time is limited??

This, from Alberta ProLife:

Abortion is something we would like to wish away.

The fact is abortion is a business. You and I, as taxpayers, are on the hook for between $6 and $8 million each year. That’s what it costs to abort over 12,000* little ones in Alberta-each year. The provincial government says it only funds “abortions that are medically necessary.” In fact, it pays for all the abortions performed in the province, whether at hospitals or private clinics.

The truth is abortion is an act of violence that destroys people’s lives. In 2004 almost 40% of all abortions were repeat procedures (performed on women who have obtained a previous abortion). Less than 5% of all abortions are performed to protect the mother’s health or life.

The fact is the majority of Albertans polled over the past 15 years oppose tax-funded abortion.
The time has come to de-fund abortion.
Helpmake it happen.

This is a grassroots campaign to de-fund abortion in Alberta.
Give financially or volunteer your time or expertise.

Campaign to De-fund Abortion in Alberta
Box 11479 Edmonton, AB T5J 3K5
or e-mail apl@albertaprolife.com.
You can call us at 1-877-880-5433.
Donate • Contact yourMLA• CallUs

* Reference: Alberta Reproductive Health: Pregnancies and Births Surveillance Report 2009

Obama in Notre Dame, Pt 2

Ann Coulter had some strong criticism of President Obama's speech at Notre Dame last week. She also reflects on the illegitimate "constitutional right" of abortion:

Liberals were awestruck by Obama's statesmanlike speech at Notre Dame, but whatever he says about abortion is frothy nonsense because we're not allowed to vote on abortion policy in America. If it's a "constitutional right," we can no more vote on abortion than we could vote on free speech.

With Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters ripped the issue out of the democratic process -- limb from limb, you might say -- and declared their desired outcome a "constitutional right." They have hysterically defended that lawless decision for the last quarter-century.

All of Obama's soothing words about joining hands and not demonizing one another are just blather as long as that legal monstrosity remains the law of the land.

Showing his open-mindedness, Obama asked, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles ... without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?" (What do I have to do to get you murderers and you non-murderers to shake hands and be friends?)

A good start would be letting us vote.

Wesley J. Smith also offers a short but excellent critique of Obama's speech on the First Things daily blog called First Thoughts. Obama says one thing, but does another. He talks about unity, but his actions and policies do nothing to promote the "middle ground" that he mentions.

As my cousin Chris, and numerous other sources, pointed out last week, recent polls show more Americans consider themselves to be Pro-Life rather than Pro-Choice/Abortion. So if Ann Coulter's vote were to happen (and I'm sure countless millions would gladly go to the polls), the "right to abortion" would be seriously challenged and Roe v. Wade overturned! What a glorious day that will be!

For discussions on other life issues, check out Wesley J. Smith's blog Secondhand Smoke - "Your 24/7 seminar on bioethics and the importance of being human."

Obama in Notre Dame

President Obama gave the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today, and also received an honorary doctor of laws. The decision to honor one of the country's most extreme abortion advocates at one of the country's oldest Catholic institutions was not without some controversy. And rightly so.

CNN showed the address live, and somehow we had full cable and were able to watch it. Obama spoke well (as usual) and talked about some of the controversial issues. To me, he seemed to justify his stance on abortion by saying he'll speak fairly about both sides, and called for more dialogue. And his reasoning for embryonic stem cell research (he omitted the "embryonic"): some people oppose it because of their view on sanctity of life, and some people are for it because they hold on to the sanctity of life of their child with juvenile diabetes who could be helped (by killing tiny unborn humans - my words there). But that's about all he said; no other rationale for his positions. Obama also talked about the economic crisis, climate change, and gave some encouraging words for the grads.

Somehow, Obama got standing ovations for a couple of his controversial points. Curiously, Father Hesburgh wasn't one of them. He's a former president of Notre Dame, and was mentioned several times in Obama's speech as a pioneer in "dialogue" in the sixties for racial justice.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the media. I look forward to the commentary on First Things... Maybe President Obama should read Healing the Culture (see previous post)!! That would do more for dialogue and fair treatment of the issue that all his rhetoric combined.

The Pope and HIV/AIDS

Pope Benedict XVI has taken a ton of criticism over his remarks about condoms while on the way to visit Cameroon and Angola. The Pope said in essence that condoms aren't the solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and they often make things worse. Well, that created quite the uproar and backlash against the Pope, the Catholic Church, and Christians in general. But are his statements that far off? What is the evidence that condoms solve the HIV/AIDS problem? I haven't done an exhaustive search, but there are an increasing number of articles and research papers suggesting condoms don't help as much as we think.

A brief, but insightful commentary is given by James Shelton in The Lancet in 2007, one of the most prestigious scientific journals. Titled "Ten Myths and One Truth About Generalized HIV Epidemics", here's some misconceptions he identifies (with a few extra comments):

1) HIV spreads like wildfire.
2) Sex work is the problem.
3) Men are the problem.
4) Adolescents are the problem.
5) Poverty and discrimination are the problem. In most countries, HIV/AIDS is more common in the wealthy.
6) Condoms are the answer. Mainly because people don't like them, use is irregular, protection imperfect, and they seem to foster disinhibition, thus increasing risky behaviors more likely to transmit the virus.
7) HIV testing is the answer.
8) Treatment is the answer.
9) New technology is the answer.
10) Sexual behavior will not change. The ABC program in Uganda, focusing on Abstinence, Be faithful (fidelity) and Condoms if you can't do A or B, worked quite well. Homosexuals in North America also changed their behaviors in the '80s. So it can be done!

And the one truth? Partner-limiting behavior (ie: fidelity) works, and we need to focus on that. The full reference is: Shelton, JD. Ten myths and one truth about HIV epidemics. The Lancet. 2007:370, pp 1809-11.

In condemning condoms, the Pope is condemning and calling out the lifestyle choices that are contrary to Biblical teaching (free sexual license, adultery, fornication, etc.). Most people don't like this. And (not) surprisingly, research shows that Christian teaching on sexuality (ie: abstinence and fidelity) usually work, more-so than condoms/testing/antiretroviral/etc. If one is to acknowledge this, one must admit the sexual revolution doesn't quite pan out as promoted, that self-discipline and self-restraint are not such bad ideas, that we are guilty of sin and there are consequences...

Politics... ideology... truth...

Maybe the Pope isn't crazy...

Theodore Dalrymple's monthly article

Theodore Dalrymple, who wrote "Life at the Bottom" which I just finished, writes a monthly essay for the New English Review. I was pretty excited to find this out. Dr Dalrymple's essays are poignant commentaries on the state of society, healthcare, and the results of intellectual ideas carried out in real life.Click here for the page with his essays, and Enjoy!

Here's the opening paragraph from his latest essay,The Rules of Perspective:

If I were asked, without time to give the question much thought, to name the greatest political virtues, I should reply, ‘Prudence and a sense of proportion.’ A New Jerusalem could not be built of these virtues, of course, but neither could a Hell on Earth; and since Hells on Earth are two a penny in human history, but New Jerusalems are infrequently encountered in it, to say the least, there is much to be said in presumption of those admittedly tepid and unexciting qualities.