NO (con)DOM SENSE......
Recently (yesterday, in fact), there was YET AGAIN another column in our local newspaper filled with misinformation about how condoms will save the world. Well, okay, maybe not "save the world", exactly, but basically, how people really need to start using condoms to avoid STD's. Oh excuse me.... STI's. Apparently the sexually transmitted viruses are no longer considered "diseases". Now they're just infections. How very nice.
But, I digress.
So, back to the column, written (surprise, surprise) by uber-liberal Mindelle Jacobs of the Sun Media. Ms. Jacobs proposes that we need to make the condom "sexy", to encourage more regular usage, thus ridding the world of all the evil sexually transmitted diseases (sorry, that's what they are!). Of course, no mention was made whatsoever about the failure rate of condoms; the fact that they are basically USELESS when trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and all the other fun little tidbits of information that the mainstream media chooses to ignore. I in my indignance fired off a letter to the editor trying to clarify a few things, and perhaps provide a more balanced overview of exactly how effective (or rather, INeffective) condoms actually are.
Since the paper did not publish my letter in today's issue (and considering I sent it to them at 10:00 in the morning, they had plenty of time to fit it in), and most likely they won't be publishing it any time soon, I am posting it on my blog. At least then I can feel like maybe it was worthwhile writing!
Dear Winnipeg Sun,
Mindelle Jacobs once again has successfully mixed a small amount of truth with blatant lies and misinformation to write her column. While it is very true that the rates of sexually transmitted diseases are skyrocketing, particularly among youth, it is simplistic and naïve to promote the idea that condoms are going to solve this problem. Condoms are not effective in stopping the spread of STDs, because many of the STDs are spread through skin-to-skin contact, not just through bodily fluids. Condoms DO NOT offer complete protection because the viruses are not confined to the area the condom is designed to cover. The AIDS virus HIV, is approximately 450 times smaller than sperm, and can easily pass through the pores of the condom. Even when condoms are used 100% perfectly (which they rarely are), the failure rate is STILL 15%. Condoms have a documented failure rate of 1 in 6 among couples using condoms to prevent the spread of the AIDS virus. A British study showed that the Human Papilloma Virus infects 46% of teenage girls after their FIRST sexual encounter. Is this what we want for our youth? There is absolutely no need whatsoever for teens to be engaging in intimate physical relationships, period. We need to step up as parents and teach our children they have self-worth and value without having to take off their clothes. It shows far more strength of character and maturity for someone to remain sexually pure than to be sexually active. If we are serious about our concern for our youth, we as a caring society will demand that abstinence programmes be implemented and emphasized in our schools. Sorry, Mindelle, but condoms are not the answer, and it is high time the media started printing the truth.
So THERE.
Thank you for letting me rant.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Our dysfunctional society today...
Recently in the news it was published that marriage (normal traditional marriage) is on a decline, making up less than 50% of stats for Canada. Interestingly enough, Manitoba has bucked this trend, with something like 68% of couples claiming marital status. (yay us!). There have been many studies over the years done that have proven beyond a doubt that the best environment for children to live in is a stable, 2 parent (one of each sex) committed home. This means a man and a woman living together with a legitimate recognition of their binding; MARRIAGE.
Licia Corbella wrote an excellent column on this subject...
We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tied and true -- no ..."
-- Joni Mitchell from My Old Man (1971)
As much as I admire Joni, that sentiment was, and still is, hokey and more importantly, untrue if not dangerous.
Those hippie days are long past, but the notion of shacking up grows more prevalent every year, as Statistics Canada's release Wednesday of 2006 census data shows.
Couples have common-law relationships for a myriad of reasons -- most of them terribly unromantic -- and include convenience, being incapable of true commitment, waiting for someone better to come along or because they think they are being (yawn) oh, so original with their anti-establishment attitude.
But the census figures and other studies show that the so-called "piece of paper" Joni derided in that song holds a lot of value, particularly for the well-being of children.
Anne-Marie Ambert, professor emeritus of sociology at York University in Toronto, says shacking up carries with it some very serious societal side effects when kids are part of the arrangement.
"That piece of paper matters a lot because cohabitations are much less stable than marriages," explains Ambert.
According to figures from StatsCan's 1998 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 63% of children whose parents were living common-law had seen their parents split by age 10, compared with 14% of children of married couples.
LET'S SPLIT
In other words, common-law relationships are a whopping 450% more likely to split up than a marriage!
The latest census figures show that common-law unions have increased by 19% since 2001 and account for 15.5% of all Canadian families.
Ambert says the resulting increase of lone-parent families -- which have reached a record 15.9% -- is also the leading cause of childhood poverty and the attendant risks associated with poverty and single parenting including, poorer educational outcomes, increased teenage pregnancy, a spike in criminality, etc.
In 2005, the median income for two-parent Canadian families was $67,600. For single-parent families it was $30,000, which means half of all single-parent families had incomes of less than that annually. About 80% of lone-parent families are headed by women.
According to a U.S. study cited by Ambert in a paper she published with The Vanier Institute of the Family, boys raised without a father are twice as likely to be jailed, though boys raised in step-parent families are at an even greater risk of turning to criminality.
That now seemingly quaint adage, "we're staying together for the sake of the kids," is starting to make a lot of sense.
"You very rarely have a very serious criminal who comes from a good, two-parent family," says Ambert. "You have delinquents and kids who go through a phase, but lots of studies around the world show that when you look at the population of very hardened criminals, very few of them grew up with a father."
Ambert adds most children raised by single parents turn out fine; it's just the negative risks grow exponentially.
TAX SYSTEM
Meanwhile, Canada's income tax system still penalizes married couples by disallowing income splitting. It's madness.
So, yes, pieces of paper hold enormous importance in this world, after all, how many of us would dare buy a house, car or couch without receiving a piece of paper in return? Unthinkable isn't it?
Paper is important. Parents who don't have that "piece of paper" are literally putting the well-being of their kids at risk.
As a side note: I can't believe how long it's been since I've written in my blog....bad Facebook.....
Recently in the news it was published that marriage (normal traditional marriage) is on a decline, making up less than 50% of stats for Canada. Interestingly enough, Manitoba has bucked this trend, with something like 68% of couples claiming marital status. (yay us!). There have been many studies over the years done that have proven beyond a doubt that the best environment for children to live in is a stable, 2 parent (one of each sex) committed home. This means a man and a woman living together with a legitimate recognition of their binding; MARRIAGE.
Licia Corbella wrote an excellent column on this subject...
We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tied and true -- no ..."
-- Joni Mitchell from My Old Man (1971)
As much as I admire Joni, that sentiment was, and still is, hokey and more importantly, untrue if not dangerous.
Those hippie days are long past, but the notion of shacking up grows more prevalent every year, as Statistics Canada's release Wednesday of 2006 census data shows.
Couples have common-law relationships for a myriad of reasons -- most of them terribly unromantic -- and include convenience, being incapable of true commitment, waiting for someone better to come along or because they think they are being (yawn) oh, so original with their anti-establishment attitude.
But the census figures and other studies show that the so-called "piece of paper" Joni derided in that song holds a lot of value, particularly for the well-being of children.
Anne-Marie Ambert, professor emeritus of sociology at York University in Toronto, says shacking up carries with it some very serious societal side effects when kids are part of the arrangement.
"That piece of paper matters a lot because cohabitations are much less stable than marriages," explains Ambert.
According to figures from StatsCan's 1998 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 63% of children whose parents were living common-law had seen their parents split by age 10, compared with 14% of children of married couples.
LET'S SPLIT
In other words, common-law relationships are a whopping 450% more likely to split up than a marriage!
The latest census figures show that common-law unions have increased by 19% since 2001 and account for 15.5% of all Canadian families.
Ambert says the resulting increase of lone-parent families -- which have reached a record 15.9% -- is also the leading cause of childhood poverty and the attendant risks associated with poverty and single parenting including, poorer educational outcomes, increased teenage pregnancy, a spike in criminality, etc.
In 2005, the median income for two-parent Canadian families was $67,600. For single-parent families it was $30,000, which means half of all single-parent families had incomes of less than that annually. About 80% of lone-parent families are headed by women.
According to a U.S. study cited by Ambert in a paper she published with The Vanier Institute of the Family, boys raised without a father are twice as likely to be jailed, though boys raised in step-parent families are at an even greater risk of turning to criminality.
That now seemingly quaint adage, "we're staying together for the sake of the kids," is starting to make a lot of sense.
"You very rarely have a very serious criminal who comes from a good, two-parent family," says Ambert. "You have delinquents and kids who go through a phase, but lots of studies around the world show that when you look at the population of very hardened criminals, very few of them grew up with a father."
Ambert adds most children raised by single parents turn out fine; it's just the negative risks grow exponentially.
TAX SYSTEM
Meanwhile, Canada's income tax system still penalizes married couples by disallowing income splitting. It's madness.
So, yes, pieces of paper hold enormous importance in this world, after all, how many of us would dare buy a house, car or couch without receiving a piece of paper in return? Unthinkable isn't it?
Paper is important. Parents who don't have that "piece of paper" are literally putting the well-being of their kids at risk.
As a side note: I can't believe how long it's been since I've written in my blog....bad Facebook.....
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The International Day of the Unborn Child
The Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, is one of the most important in the Church calendar. It celebrates the actual Incarnation of Our Savior the Word made flesh in the womb of His mother, Mary. Saint Luke describes the annunciation given by the angel Gabriel to Mary that she was to become the mother of the Incarnation of God. This is where the first part of the “Hail Mary” comes from; the angelic salutation “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee”.
The Church's celebration of the Annunciation is believed to date to the early 5th century. The Annunciation has always been celebrated on March 25, exactly nine months before Christmas Day - the length of a pregnancy.
The International Day of the Unborn Child was instituted as an addition to the Knights of Columbus’ commitment to build a culture that respects and protects every human life from natural conception to natural death. This is our opportunity to stand up and speak out against the evil of abortion. This feast is very important in the defense of the life of unborn children. In families with young children, this feast would be a good time to begin teaching youngsters important lessons about the high value God places on human life.
Please take a look at this amazing presentation - put together by Suzanne at www.bigbluewave.ca. This would be an awesome commercial for T.V.!
http://www.youtube.com/v/OJX2JdNc-Lo"
The Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, is one of the most important in the Church calendar. It celebrates the actual Incarnation of Our Savior the Word made flesh in the womb of His mother, Mary. Saint Luke describes the annunciation given by the angel Gabriel to Mary that she was to become the mother of the Incarnation of God. This is where the first part of the “Hail Mary” comes from; the angelic salutation “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee”.
The Church's celebration of the Annunciation is believed to date to the early 5th century. The Annunciation has always been celebrated on March 25, exactly nine months before Christmas Day - the length of a pregnancy.
The International Day of the Unborn Child was instituted as an addition to the Knights of Columbus’ commitment to build a culture that respects and protects every human life from natural conception to natural death. This is our opportunity to stand up and speak out against the evil of abortion. This feast is very important in the defense of the life of unborn children. In families with young children, this feast would be a good time to begin teaching youngsters important lessons about the high value God places on human life.
Please take a look at this amazing presentation - put together by Suzanne at www.bigbluewave.ca. This would be an awesome commercial for T.V.!
http://www.youtube.com/v/OJX2JdNc-Lo"
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Recently, a 13 year old girl in Italy was forced to have an abortion AGAINST her wishes, by her parents. She had stated emphatically that she wanted to continue the pregnancy, but her parents refused and the state forced her to undergo the abortion. Now, she is in psychiatric care because she is under a suicide watch. She was so distraught at being forced to kill her unborn child, she has threatened to end her own life. And this was in her best interest???
(See the link to lifesite for the full story)
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07021904.html
I often wonder about some of the arguements presented by pro-aborts. One of their favorites, of course, is "it's a private matter; a woman's right to choose." If this is so true, then why aren't the pro-aborts rallying to this girl's defense? Who are they to say "she's too young to be a mother" (that is often their arguement). If she was old enought to have sex, and could conceive, then yes, by all technicalities, she IS perfectly capable of becoming a mother. She may not be the ideal age, but I happen to know a couple of people in their 30's whose parenting abilities are questionable, to say the least!!
That aside, exactly HOW do they conisder themselves "pro-choice"? It'll be interesting to see how the pro-aborts worm their way out of this one. Oh yeah.... they'll just conveniently ignore it!!
(See the link to lifesite for the full story)
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07021904.html
I often wonder about some of the arguements presented by pro-aborts. One of their favorites, of course, is "it's a private matter; a woman's right to choose." If this is so true, then why aren't the pro-aborts rallying to this girl's defense? Who are they to say "she's too young to be a mother" (that is often their arguement). If she was old enought to have sex, and could conceive, then yes, by all technicalities, she IS perfectly capable of becoming a mother. She may not be the ideal age, but I happen to know a couple of people in their 30's whose parenting abilities are questionable, to say the least!!
That aside, exactly HOW do they conisder themselves "pro-choice"? It'll be interesting to see how the pro-aborts worm their way out of this one. Oh yeah.... they'll just conveniently ignore it!!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
This is the video about the smallest baby born to survive. Weighing just 10 ozs., this little girl was born at 21 weeks, 6 days, almost 2 weeks earlier than had previously been considered "viable".
The parents had to lie about the gestational age of their baby, stating that the mother was about 23 weeks along, to get the doctors to work on saving the baby. Why, you ask? Because in Florida, they ABORT babies on a regular basis at this age, and OLDER....
Maybe with more media coverage of images like this, the world will finally figure it out....
Check out the video!
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2886441
The parents had to lie about the gestational age of their baby, stating that the mother was about 23 weeks along, to get the doctors to work on saving the baby. Why, you ask? Because in Florida, they ABORT babies on a regular basis at this age, and OLDER....
Maybe with more media coverage of images like this, the world will finally figure it out....
Check out the video!
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2886441
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
We held a youth rally in celebration of Respect Life Week this past Friday evening. This achieved a three-fold purpose: education, fellowship, and outreach - youth from several different churches were in attendance. While the organizer (okay, it was me) was a little disappointed with the turnout of 44 youths, most were very pleased with this number, especially considering a) it was a “first time” event; b) there were several other major events happening in the city that evening; and c) it was REALLY COLD out! Still, I would have like to see a LITTLE more support, especially from my own church....
The youth that did turn out were treated to great music, hot dogs, chips and drinks while learning some really valuable information regarding their faith, chastity and abstinence. One significant demonstration was when two youth were “duct-taped” together on the arms, the presenter explaining that this represented a “bonding union” of two people. The duct-tape was quickly ripped off the two, representing the “break up”(giving a very real analogy of the pain, as well!). The same duct-tape was applied to the girl and a different partner, and then repeated again. The two were asked how the duct-tape felt by this last “sticking”. Both confirmed that the tape was much less sticky, and unable to hold the two together very well. The moral significance of this experiment was loud and clear, and definitely not lost on the youth present!
The chastity team imparted accurate, truthful information on the physical, emotional and spiritual harm caused by sex outside of marriage. Statistics on sexually transmitted diseases (one in 4 teens are infected yearly with an incurable infection) were sobering, to say the least. Those present learned condoms can have a failure rate as high as 30%, and that condoms DO NOT offer protection from all sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, as reported in a recent review by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Information on healthy relationships and the freedom abstinence gives (freedom from sexually transmitted diseases, fear of pregnancy, heartache, bad memories, guilt, having to lie to parents, etc) was also focused on.
While some youth were a little disappointed that they didn’t have more “free” time to fellowship – mainly due to a mix up by one youth group that didn’t arrive until after 7:30, most were eager to hear the presentation. One mother expressed before the rally that it was “great to be having a “church youth group” gathering where they would actually learn something about their Christian faith”! It is amazing how many youth groups from churches organize funbowling outings, roller skating, sleigh rides, etc, but don't give a second thought to actual Christian instruction! There was time before and after the presentation to mingle, and several chances to win a door prize. One youth pastor voiced his appreciation for the chance to fellowship with other Christians outside their own church community, and expressed great interest in getting together again.
Even though some of the youth may not be facing many decisions about their sexuality just yet, it is crucial that they get good information now rather than when it is too late. With the offensive and often erroneous messages from TV, music and the mainstream media, we as caring Christians have a responsibility to offer our children the Truth.
The youth that did turn out were treated to great music, hot dogs, chips and drinks while learning some really valuable information regarding their faith, chastity and abstinence. One significant demonstration was when two youth were “duct-taped” together on the arms, the presenter explaining that this represented a “bonding union” of two people. The duct-tape was quickly ripped off the two, representing the “break up”(giving a very real analogy of the pain, as well!). The same duct-tape was applied to the girl and a different partner, and then repeated again. The two were asked how the duct-tape felt by this last “sticking”. Both confirmed that the tape was much less sticky, and unable to hold the two together very well. The moral significance of this experiment was loud and clear, and definitely not lost on the youth present!
The chastity team imparted accurate, truthful information on the physical, emotional and spiritual harm caused by sex outside of marriage. Statistics on sexually transmitted diseases (one in 4 teens are infected yearly with an incurable infection) were sobering, to say the least. Those present learned condoms can have a failure rate as high as 30%, and that condoms DO NOT offer protection from all sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, as reported in a recent review by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Information on healthy relationships and the freedom abstinence gives (freedom from sexually transmitted diseases, fear of pregnancy, heartache, bad memories, guilt, having to lie to parents, etc) was also focused on.
While some youth were a little disappointed that they didn’t have more “free” time to fellowship – mainly due to a mix up by one youth group that didn’t arrive until after 7:30, most were eager to hear the presentation. One mother expressed before the rally that it was “great to be having a “church youth group” gathering where they would actually learn something about their Christian faith”! It is amazing how many youth groups from churches organize funbowling outings, roller skating, sleigh rides, etc, but don't give a second thought to actual Christian instruction! There was time before and after the presentation to mingle, and several chances to win a door prize. One youth pastor voiced his appreciation for the chance to fellowship with other Christians outside their own church community, and expressed great interest in getting together again.
Even though some of the youth may not be facing many decisions about their sexuality just yet, it is crucial that they get good information now rather than when it is too late. With the offensive and often erroneous messages from TV, music and the mainstream media, we as caring Christians have a responsibility to offer our children the Truth.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
I found this great quiz on a fellow blogger's site, the bird's nest. It is HARD.... I only got 86%.
It is an eyeopener of how well you know your faith...Too bad they don't show which ones you got wrong!
Good luck!!!
Do You Know Your Baltimore Catechism?
I did it a second time, and at least I improved to 89%, but I STILL don't know which ones were wrong.....
It is an eyeopener of how well you know your faith...Too bad they don't show which ones you got wrong!
Good luck!!!
Do You Know Your Baltimore Catechism?
I did it a second time, and at least I improved to 89%, but I STILL don't know which ones were wrong.....
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
This is a slightly different version of the article I did for Respect Life Week for our church bulletin....
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born
I set you apart.” Jeremiah, 1:5
Sunday, February 4th marks the beginning of Respect Life Week in Manitoba. In 1970 the League for Life was organized, responding to the need for a pro-life educational group in the city. Respect Life Week was officially endorsed by the Bishop in 1983 as a time for all Churches to recognize the need to promote a respect for Life.
We must take time to reflect on God’s priceless gift of human life, and to recognize the need for greater action. It is not just about abortion, but also end of life decisions, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and now embryonic stem cell and human cloning experimentation.
As Catholics, we are mandated by our faith to uphold and promote in an ethical and moral manner the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear with article 2271:
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of
safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of
themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the
moment of conception…”
The defense and promotion of Life is not the ministry of a few but the responsibility of all. It is sometimes difficult to have the courage to speak out about issues that some people believe we have no business concerning ourselves with. Pro-lifers are often portrayed as enemies of women’s rights and as opponents of freedom. This is so far from the truth! People need to be totally free from the lies and exploitation abortion offers. We need to be educated about the damage of abortion - physical, emotional and spiritual.
As caring Christians, we must focus on inspiring the hope that brings the courage to say “yes” to life. We can accomplish this most successfully through education; first of ourselves, and especially of our children. Science has proven that life begins at the moment of conception, a life entirely separate and unique from the mother. We must also educate ourselves on the realities and risks of abortion. We are called to minister in a loving and supportive way by sharing our time, talent and treasure in life affirming ways: donating items to a crisis pregnancy centre; offering support to a new mom by free babysitting occasionally; doing small errands or chores for someone elderly or even just visiting with them. Sometimes we may be called to “step out of our comfort zone”, to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” (Proverbs 31:8-9) and truly taking a stand for Life.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
-- Dante
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born
I set you apart.” Jeremiah, 1:5
Sunday, February 4th marks the beginning of Respect Life Week in Manitoba. In 1970 the League for Life was organized, responding to the need for a pro-life educational group in the city. Respect Life Week was officially endorsed by the Bishop in 1983 as a time for all Churches to recognize the need to promote a respect for Life.
We must take time to reflect on God’s priceless gift of human life, and to recognize the need for greater action. It is not just about abortion, but also end of life decisions, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and now embryonic stem cell and human cloning experimentation.
As Catholics, we are mandated by our faith to uphold and promote in an ethical and moral manner the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear with article 2271:
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of
safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of
themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the
moment of conception…”
The defense and promotion of Life is not the ministry of a few but the responsibility of all. It is sometimes difficult to have the courage to speak out about issues that some people believe we have no business concerning ourselves with. Pro-lifers are often portrayed as enemies of women’s rights and as opponents of freedom. This is so far from the truth! People need to be totally free from the lies and exploitation abortion offers. We need to be educated about the damage of abortion - physical, emotional and spiritual.
As caring Christians, we must focus on inspiring the hope that brings the courage to say “yes” to life. We can accomplish this most successfully through education; first of ourselves, and especially of our children. Science has proven that life begins at the moment of conception, a life entirely separate and unique from the mother. We must also educate ourselves on the realities and risks of abortion. We are called to minister in a loving and supportive way by sharing our time, talent and treasure in life affirming ways: donating items to a crisis pregnancy centre; offering support to a new mom by free babysitting occasionally; doing small errands or chores for someone elderly or even just visiting with them. Sometimes we may be called to “step out of our comfort zone”, to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” (Proverbs 31:8-9) and truly taking a stand for Life.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
-- Dante
Monday, January 22, 2007
I was doing my daily check on Suzanne's Big Blue Wave, and for some reason decided to click on Bread n Roses to see what was up there.... The following is so ludicrous, I can't believe this woman would actually admit to thinking like this!
Posted by fern hill on 22nd January 2007
"Men and women are different. Here is what one embattled abortion provider in the US said:
“The only way women come close to achieving equality is if they can control their fertility,”
said the 65-year-old Carhart. “Abortion rights for men have been available since the
beginning of time. When they’re unhappy with a pregnancy, they walk away; it doesn’t
matter whether it’s the day after conception or when the child is 10 years old.”
If women are to achieve and maintain equality, there must be a full range of choices in how
we control our fertility.
That’s how simple it is to me. Equality"
So, from what I gather, she is saying that women should have the right to kill their children NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE, because she believes in equality?!?!
Just because a man may think it's "okay" to leave a pregnant woman when he doesn't want to accept his responsibility doesn't mean this is something women should aspire to being able to do, too. This arguement also points to the fact that pro-aborts DO in fact, see abortion as just another means of birth control.
If the issue is about equality, which the author seems to be suggesting; what about the rights to equality of the child? A child 10 years of age is different only in size and living space from a child in the womb. What if it is a girl child? What about her rights to equality?
Abortion, besides taking the right to life away from another human being, is a tool of oppression. Men push for a woman to abort so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions; they view women only as sexual objects and playthings. Abortion is forced on incest victims by men who want to hide their crimes. If women are truly concerned about equality in the area of "reproductive rights", they might want to focus more energy on support services that empower women to continue with a pregnancy. People need to learn that if they are going to have sex, they should be willing to accept the responsibility of that outcome, whether it is love and emotional attachment or a baby.
Posted by fern hill on 22nd January 2007
"Men and women are different. Here is what one embattled abortion provider in the US said:
“The only way women come close to achieving equality is if they can control their fertility,”
said the 65-year-old Carhart. “Abortion rights for men have been available since the
beginning of time. When they’re unhappy with a pregnancy, they walk away; it doesn’t
matter whether it’s the day after conception or when the child is 10 years old.”
If women are to achieve and maintain equality, there must be a full range of choices in how
we control our fertility.
That’s how simple it is to me. Equality"
So, from what I gather, she is saying that women should have the right to kill their children NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE, because she believes in equality?!?!
Just because a man may think it's "okay" to leave a pregnant woman when he doesn't want to accept his responsibility doesn't mean this is something women should aspire to being able to do, too. This arguement also points to the fact that pro-aborts DO in fact, see abortion as just another means of birth control.
If the issue is about equality, which the author seems to be suggesting; what about the rights to equality of the child? A child 10 years of age is different only in size and living space from a child in the womb. What if it is a girl child? What about her rights to equality?
Abortion, besides taking the right to life away from another human being, is a tool of oppression. Men push for a woman to abort so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions; they view women only as sexual objects and playthings. Abortion is forced on incest victims by men who want to hide their crimes. If women are truly concerned about equality in the area of "reproductive rights", they might want to focus more energy on support services that empower women to continue with a pregnancy. People need to learn that if they are going to have sex, they should be willing to accept the responsibility of that outcome, whether it is love and emotional attachment or a baby.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
"The Little Black Book" has been the centre of controversy around Manitoba for some time now. It is an "address style" book to be distributed to teens, with information regarding a wide variety of topics including a substantial portion on sex.
Recently in our local community newspaper (the Herald), one of the columnists (who shall remain nameless), wrote an article extoling the "virtues" of this Book, expressing her opinion that every single student in Manitoba should receive a copy. In true leftist, socialist fashion, she also slagged any parent for opposing the handing out of this so-called information. She was extraordinarily rude in her “request” for parents who have concerns about the “Little Black Book” to “give their heads a shake” showing not only her immaturity level, but a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a parent.
The author advises parents with concerns that "it's not 1950 anymore! Sex is everywhere!" Yes, it’s not 1950 anymore, and sex may very well “be everywhere”. Responsible parents monitor how much of this and in what capacity it reaches their children. My children have never, ever been exposed to Sex in the City, or Desperate Housewives, or whatever the current drivel on T.V. is. My husband and I ensure they are not watching any T.V. without our consent as to what they are viewing. If something is objectionable; we shut it off, and explain why. As a family we enjoy popular music, current movies and read the newspaper daily. I know many other responsible parents who are also raising their children to be discerning as to what is appropriate. This is not hard to do; it just takes serious commitment, time and a desire to raise good children.
The author of this column believes the Black Book is a “book of facts”. I have seen several examples of the so-called “facts” being purported in this book; they are nothing short of pornography. Where are the facts that show that the only 100% surefire way to prevent STI’s is abstinence? Where is the accurate, truthful information detailing the dangers of casual sexual encounters; of drugs or alcohol? What about the fact that condom failure has been rated as high as 30%? Where is the information on how to build self-esteem, and the importance of self-respect? Children need to learn the beauty of sex within the boundaries of a loving, committed marriage, the way it is meant to be experienced.
The loose, liberal values types have had their chance to “educate” our youth regarding sex – for over 30 years, in fact. What do we have to show for it? Epidemics of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (just because people are trying to change the name to “infections” doesn’t lessen the fact that these are still diseases.) Out of control promiscuity; soaring rates of teen depression and anxiety; higher incidences of suicide of our youth who constantly feel devalued, used and generally “not good enough”.
It is high time for change. Serious education regarding a basic respect of life, the overwhelming benefits and advantages of abstinence and chastity, (100% success rate for protection against unplanned pregnancies, unwanted STDs guaranteed!!) as well as teaching our youth about self-control and accepting responsibility for themselves will give them much better tools to deal with life than any “little black book” could ever hope to aspire to.
Recently in our local community newspaper (the Herald), one of the columnists (who shall remain nameless), wrote an article extoling the "virtues" of this Book, expressing her opinion that every single student in Manitoba should receive a copy. In true leftist, socialist fashion, she also slagged any parent for opposing the handing out of this so-called information. She was extraordinarily rude in her “request” for parents who have concerns about the “Little Black Book” to “give their heads a shake” showing not only her immaturity level, but a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a parent.
The author advises parents with concerns that "it's not 1950 anymore! Sex is everywhere!" Yes, it’s not 1950 anymore, and sex may very well “be everywhere”. Responsible parents monitor how much of this and in what capacity it reaches their children. My children have never, ever been exposed to Sex in the City, or Desperate Housewives, or whatever the current drivel on T.V. is. My husband and I ensure they are not watching any T.V. without our consent as to what they are viewing. If something is objectionable; we shut it off, and explain why. As a family we enjoy popular music, current movies and read the newspaper daily. I know many other responsible parents who are also raising their children to be discerning as to what is appropriate. This is not hard to do; it just takes serious commitment, time and a desire to raise good children.
The author of this column believes the Black Book is a “book of facts”. I have seen several examples of the so-called “facts” being purported in this book; they are nothing short of pornography. Where are the facts that show that the only 100% surefire way to prevent STI’s is abstinence? Where is the accurate, truthful information detailing the dangers of casual sexual encounters; of drugs or alcohol? What about the fact that condom failure has been rated as high as 30%? Where is the information on how to build self-esteem, and the importance of self-respect? Children need to learn the beauty of sex within the boundaries of a loving, committed marriage, the way it is meant to be experienced.
The loose, liberal values types have had their chance to “educate” our youth regarding sex – for over 30 years, in fact. What do we have to show for it? Epidemics of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (just because people are trying to change the name to “infections” doesn’t lessen the fact that these are still diseases.) Out of control promiscuity; soaring rates of teen depression and anxiety; higher incidences of suicide of our youth who constantly feel devalued, used and generally “not good enough”.
It is high time for change. Serious education regarding a basic respect of life, the overwhelming benefits and advantages of abstinence and chastity, (100% success rate for protection against unplanned pregnancies, unwanted STDs guaranteed!!) as well as teaching our youth about self-control and accepting responsibility for themselves will give them much better tools to deal with life than any “little black book” could ever hope to aspire to.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Lifesite News has reported that
"both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) are recommending that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, should be screened, including with invasive procedures such as amniocentesis, to discover whether they have a risk of bearing a child with Down’s Syndrome."
The purpose of this is to give women "the opportunity" to abort their baby (oh excuse me, if the baby is not wanted it is "the pregnancy") if there is a chance that their "product of conception" will be less than perfect. The SOGC is going as far as to ensure that all
"Pregnant women over the age of 40 should “automatically be given amniocentesis", as reported by the National Post.
Does this mean they are considering this to be a mandatory screening? With my last pregnancy at the age of 38, even my obstetrician, who knows very well that I am a staunch pro-life activist, really pushed for me to have an amniocentisis (no, I did not.). What will happen if women refuse? Will our medicare system refuse to cover expenses of this birth? Perhaps penalize us financially? Don't laugh....this is not past the realm of possibility....
This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at eliminating the disabled of our society, in other words, the practice of eugenics. Already 89 percent of Down Syndrome babies in Canada, and 90 percent in the U.S. are killed before birth. Is this being fueled by the economic pressures of our health care system? With the current push for the acceptance of euthansia, and indeed, the acceptance of the "right to die" turning into an "obligation to die" so as to not be a further burden on our already overwhelmed health care(?) system, it is only a matter of time before infanticide becomes the next accepted "solution".
The other statement I take great issue with comes from Dr. James Goldberg, the former chairman of the ACOG's committee on genetics. In an interview with the New York Times, Dr. Goldberg said
that the recommendation to offer younger women the invasive procedures was worth the risk of miscarriage. He said that for most couples, “losing a normal pregnancy secondary to the procedure is not as problematic as the birth of a Down syndrome child, so they’re willing to take that risk.”
Wow. What a complete affront to those of us who have lost children to miscarriage, and to those who are raising a Down syndrome child. So, it's better to have a child die than to have a child with Down syndrome? This Dr. Goldberg has obviously never spoken with any parent who has actually lost a child through miscarriage. To suggest that it is better to miscarry than have a baby with a birth defect shows just how little human life is valued.
Here in Manitoba, we have groups, the Society of Manitobans with Disabilities, the Down Syndrome Society, Autism Society, and several others. Wherever we are in Canada, we need to encourage members of these organizations to stand up and be counted as members of a Right to Life group. We need to actively invite them to join, and to have their members automatically belong to our Respect Life Organizations.
We need to strengthen our numbers. If we don't all band together, sometime in the not so distant future, we may all find ourselves the target of some sort of "elimination" campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)