Abortion Distortion

The health minister in Quebec recently tried to enact universal standards for cleanliness for surgical procedures... standards that apply to hospitals, smaller public surgical clinics, private clinics... and standards that would apply for any type of surgery - breast cancer surgery, appendectomy, gallbladder removal, wisdom teeth, abortion...

Whoops, did I say abortion? The actual bill didn't mention any specific surgery, just that all sites performing surgeries need to meet the safety requirements. Well, the pro-abortion lobby jumped right on it - this bill (by a pro-choicer, I might add), would shut down 3 abortion clinics until they could renovate! Then how would women get the abortions they need?

Here's the CBC article: Quebec abortion clinics excused...
Not quite accurate in its reporting, but the essentials are there. 2nd paragraph should read: "Bill 34 would have required all surgical clinics to have ventilated operating rooms and surgical clothing for all staff."

Andrea Mrozek and Rebecca Walberg, founders of ProWomanProLife.org, have written an excellent commentary about the whole debacle, published in the National Post August 21: The Abortion Distortion.

Definitely worth the read, even if you don't like the whole abortion debate.

19.19 seconds

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.



(try this if the above doesn't work: Bolt 200m Record... or just look it up on YouTube!)

What can you do in 19.19 seconds??

One Small Step...

From CatholicVote.org

Are you Normal?

From the Summer '09 issue of Geez Magazine:

Normal is getting dressed
in clothes that you buy for work
and driving through traffic in a car
that you are still paying for -
in order to get to the job you need
to pay for the clothes
and the car
and the house
you leave vacant all day
so you can afford to live in it.
- Ellen Goodman

Ouch. Yes, for now, I'm normal. But working on that. And You?

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."

O Jesus, You who suffer...

O Jesus,
you who suffer,
grant that, today and every day,
I may be able to see you in the person of your sick ones
and that, by offering them my care,
I may serve you.
Grant that, even if you are hidden under the unattractive disguise of
anger, of crime, or of madness,
I may recognize you and say,
"Jesus, you who suffer, how sweet it is to serve you."

Give me, Lord, this vision of faith,
and my work will never be monotonous,
I will find joy in harboring the small whims and desires
of all the poor who suffer.
Dear sick one, you are still more beloved to me
because you represent Christ.
What a privilege I am granted in being able to take care of you!

O God, since you are Jesus who suffers,
deign to be for me also
a Jesus who is patient, indulgent with my faults,
who looks only at my intentions,
which are to love you and to serve you
in the person of each of these children of yours who suffer.
Lord, increase my faith.
Bless my efforts and my work,
now and forever.

- Mother Teresa of Calcutta, taken from "Mother Teresa: A life for God" by Lavonne Neff.

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.

Healing the Culture

Just started reading "Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness, Freedom and the Life Issues" by Robert J. Spitzer. Here's a couple quotes from the introduction:

When we ground our culture and public policy in metaphysical materialism, we advocate for not only a radically incomplete view of reality but also a radically incomplete view of human dignity, destiny, and community.

and

our view of the reality and value of the intangibles (anything that is not visible, like love, justice, personhood, etc.) underlies every moral and cultural issue upon which the quality of our individual and communal life depends.

I look forward to exploring these intangibles, and how I can bring healing to the culture and within the medical profession.

He Is Risen!!

Ash, Caleb and I went to see 'Love According to John" at the Jubilee Auditorium last night. I was Caleb's first theatre experience!



The passion play is put on by Alberta Lyric Theatre. They do a fantastic job, really bringing to life the gospel of John. Congrats to them, and thanks for bringing us closer to our Creator, and a greater understanding of our need and His sacrifice.




I found this short reflection on the resurrection on Randy Alcorn's blog:

"Make no mistake: if he rose at all it was as His body; if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle, the Church will fail. Let us not mock God with metaphor, analogy, sidestepping transcendence; making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the faded credulity of earlier ages; let us walk through the door."
- John Updike, as quoted by Randy Alcorn on his blog.

As over 500 witnessed firsthand, and countless millions since by His indwelling presence, may we say with confidence with them this Easter: "He is Risen, He is Risen indeed!"

A new Calvin & Hobbes?!?

Is this a new Calvin (a la "Calvin & Hobbes") waiting to happen, or what?!? Just look at that mischievous smile. I think we're in for trouble in a year or two!

Sleeve-Facing

Caleb's been sleeve-facing again! Not bad for a 2-1/2 month old!

Maybe he can even get a Geez promo gig! We'll have to send them the pic...

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...

Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana

Found out last week that it was released in paperback a month ago. Finished it last week. So good, so good! Hard to put down! Paints an incredible picture of Christ's humanity, and divinity. Highly recommended!
(apparently 9% off on Chapters website).

Reflections on The Lord's Prayer

From "Names of God and other Bible studies" by Rose Publishing:

How Can I Pray?

How can I pray "our" if I live only for myself?
How can I pray "Father" if I do not act like his child?
How can I pray "who are in Heaven" if I am laying up no treasures there?
How can I pray "hallowed be Thy name" if I don't care about being holy myself?
How can I pray "Thy kingdom come" if I live for my kingdom, power, and wealth?
How can I pray "Thy will be done" if I disobey His word?
How can I pray "on earth as it is in heaven" if I will not serve him here and now?
How can I pray "give us... our daily bread" if I am dishonest or unwilling to share what I have with others?
How can I pray "forgive us our debts" if I nurture resentment against another?
How can I pray "lead us not into temptation" if I willingly place myself in its path?
How can I pray "deliver us from evil" if I refuse to put on all of God's armor?
How can I pray "Thine is the kingdom" if my life does not reflect his lordship?
How can I pray "Thine is the... power" if I fear what people may do?
How can I pray "Thine is the... glory" if I seek honor for myself?
How can I pray "forever" if my life is bounded only by the things of time?

-adapted from "Alone with God" by John MacArthur, Jr.

Hockey - Tradecentre!

The NHL Trade Deadline is 1hr 30min away. I'm watching the live up-to-date coverage on TSN. It's strangely exciting - the potential for big names to be traded as teams prepare for the playoffs. The Oil need a good D-man... can we say Jay Bowmeester? But the "experts" say only Vancouver and Boston are interested. C'mon Tambollini! Let's make a run out of it!!

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.

Ash Wednesday - beginning of Lent

Today marks the beginning of Lent, a season of fasting, reflection and preparation for the death and resurrection of Christ. Here's a brief explanation from catholic.org:

Lent is about conversion, turning our lives more completely over to Christ and his way of life. That always involves giving up sin in some form. The goal is not just to abstain from sin for the duration of Lent but to root sin out of our lives forever. Conversion means leaving behind an old way of living and acting in order to embrace new life in Christ. For catechumens, Lent is a period intended to bring their initial conversion to completion.

Being brought up in a baptist/protestant tradition, we didn't celebrate lent. I didn't really know what it was until my late teens. Now I see it as a valuable exercise in examining one's life and removing or giving up things that prevent us from knowing Christ more fully... giving up a worldly habit and instead using that time to focus on Christ. Easier said than done, but still a useful practice, any time of year.

So what will I give up this year? Useless TV viewing and Internet usage. (some TV is useful... can we say UEFA Champions League Soccer?). That should save me at least an hour or so each day... more time to reflect, read, pray. Draw near. Lent.

What will you give up?

Attack on Conscience... again

The CBC Edmonton website had a random article today about a pro-life doctor who refuses to provide referrals for abortion. Dr. Johnston was commenting on the upcoming review of standards by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, where they may require physicians to refer a patient to an abortion center if the patient asks. This would essentially make it illegal for a doctor (myself included) to use our moral judgment in advising and treating our patients. And a brief reading of the comments shows most people do not understand the nature of medicine or the nature of abortion.

Practicing medicine is a moral activity. We, as physicians, recommend to our patients what they ought to do with their bodies/health. It is then up to the patient to proceed. As such, we must use our clinical judgment, but also our moral judgment in recommending what we feel is best for our patients. If we cannot do this, then the autonomy of the doctor is hampered and we become simply automatons of the system. Just because a law is in place does not make it right. And just because a patient demands for a procedure does not make it right, either. Particularly when there are so many negative sequelae to that procedure. See Abort73.com for excellent overviews of the abortion topic.

A fitting quote from Theodore Dalrymple in his book, "Life at the Bottom":

If the doctor has a duty to relieve the suffering of his patients, he must have some idea where that suffering comes from, and this involves the retention of judgment, including moral judgment. And if, as far as he can tell in good faith, the misery of his patients derives from the way they live, he has a duty to tell them so - which often involves a more or less explicit condemnation of their way of life as completely incompatible with a satisfying existence. By avoiding the issue, the doctor is not being kind to his patients; he is being cowardly. Moreover, by refusing to place the onus on the patients to improve their lot, he is likely to mislead them into supposing that he has some purely technical or pharmacological answer to their problems, thus helping to perpetuate them.

Rumors of Transcendence

Philip Yancey has a great article in this month's First Things, titled "What Art Can - and Can't - Do." He reflects on the closing words in Ecclesiastes: "The words of the wise prod us to live well. They're like nails hammered home, holding life together. They are given by God, the one Shepherd" (Ecc 12:11, the Message). He talks about artists spurring on others to action "as a goad", and others as being firmly embedded nails, reaffirming truth. Some points stood out:

Civilization once looked to art as the means of passing on wisdom from one generation to the next. The act of writing was invented, after all, to convey the sacred: Permanent things must be passed on in a permanent way, hence the hieroglyphs on Egyptian tombs. But a civilization that no longer believes in permanent things, one that holds to no objective truths, resorts to deconstruction, no construction.

Our civilization doesn't believe in permanent things, or objective truth. What will that mean to the next generation? Yancey gives the example of Russia and their experience with communism: "A regime that tried harder than any other to kill of God instead ended up committing suicide."

Another quote:

Perhaps the existence of art - its inherent, permanent-seeming worth, as well as its echo of original Creation - can be a pointer to a grand artist, a rumor of transcendence."

I think this should apply to everything in life... are we living in such a way that points to a grand artist. Are we spreading rumors of the transcendent? Yancey suggests that even "writing in the sand" can make a difference; after all, that's the only "art" Jesus ever did... no paintings or books or videos... just some random writing in the sand when the Pharisees came to condemn the woman caught in adultery. In so doing, Jesus created time for reflection, and left rumors of transcendence on the hearts of man.

What is Poverty?

Currently reading "Life at the Bottom: the Worldview that makes the Underclass", by Theodore Dalrymple. He makes some interesting and very honest observations from his perspective as a psychiatrist in England. Here's some food for thought:

What do we mean by poverty? Not what Dickens or Blake or Mayhew meant. Today no one seriously expects to go hungry in England or to live without running water or medical care or even TV. Poverty has been redefined in industrial countries, so that anyone at the lower end of the income distribution is poor ex officio, as it were - poor by virtue of having less than the rich. And of course by this logic, the only way of eliminating poverty is by an egalitarian redistribution of wealth - even if the society as a whole were to become poorer as a result.

Such redistribution was the goal of the welfare state. But it has not eliminated poverty, despite the vast sums expended, and despite the fact that the poor are now substantially richer - indeed are not, by traditional standards, poor at all. As long as the rich exist, so must the poor, as we now define them.

Dr. Dalrymple goes on to talk about the squalor in England and the condition of some of his patients. Their squalor is chosen, since many in similar circumstances were able to overcome it, and it is not material or economic, but a spiritual, moral and cultural poverty, a lack of self-discipline, a life without meaning, without God.

To be sure, poverty in the developed world is different from poverty in the third world where most live on less than a dollar a day and each day survived is an achievement, worthy of self-respect. Rather, Dr. Dalrymple suggests first world poverty is the worst kind - it is poverty of soul. I tend to agree. I can see it spreading deeper and deeper into our culture and society. Movies, music, TV, advertisement, academia, politics... poverty of soul is becoming more evident each day. Just listen to the news. Even in small things, like a young dating couple walking hand in hand, talking and texting on their own cell phones, paying no attention to the flesh and blood person beside them, but rather wasting efforts on their impersonal handheld devices. Ah, young love. Oh, Just wait - I need to text someone.