Saturday, December 30, 2006

Unborn child is not just a "blob of tissue"

Some pro-abortion activists have been using the argument that a fetus is not a child, but rather a random blob of tissue. Fortunately, the development of ultra-sound technology is helping to put that myth to rest.

Here's a great video put together by Suzanne from Big Blue Wave that destroys the myth once and for all.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Carleton students go off deep end

It's finally done. The Carleton University Students' Association voted overwhelmingly on December 5th to deny resources, space, recognition or funding to "anti-choice" student groups, i.e. groups advocating an end to abortion.

They're trying to pretend that this is not limiting freedom of speech since pro-life students will still be able to gather on campus, but they won't be able to use facilities or resources of CUSA.

Not limiting freedom of speech, eh? Nice try. In the debating world, that's called an argument that commits suicide because the very essence of the argument contradicts what it is trying to prove.

Think for a second: Why did CUSA pass this motion in the first place? They say it was to end "discrimination", as they define it. According to CUSA, anybody who is advocating an end to abortion is acting in a discriminatory manner towards women. Therefore, these groups can't be tolerated and must be muzzled. Since CUSA does not possess all the necessary powers to enforce a strict suppression of these groups, it did the most that it could, by denying them any legitimacy, club status, resources or facilities. The point is precisely to shut down these groups. There is no other reason to pass this motion.

Supporters of the motion will claim that they've done nothing to restrain freedom of speech. That's baloney. They know that the purpose of denying club status to these groups was to make their life more difficult in the hopes of getting them out of their hair. Don't believe their rhetoric.

CUSA is so narrow-minded that it doesn't realize that abortion is one of the motion divisive issues of the last 50 years. CUSA is pretending as if the debate was settled and that it is somehow "common knowledge" that anybody with a contrary opinion is some sort of anti-woman bigot that can't be accepted on campus.

Having studied at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I know how these student bodies get easily corrupted by the power game. Students are so young and imature that they readily seize any opportunity to impose their values on others. It's like having a child in a candy store. They can't resist.

It's hard to fathom the hypocrisy of a University in a democratic society allowing such a suppression of freedom of debate. It's mind-boggling.

Carleton, which was already struggling with an image of "Last Change U" is now clearly on the black list of flaky institutions. I would never study there and won't give a penny if they ask me to donate.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Why the vow of silence, Stephen?

What a shame that the Conservative Party is not allowing it's candidates or MPs to fill in questionnaires regarding their position on social issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage.

I thought Stephen Harper was supposed to end the "democratic deficit" that the Liberals were so fond of. I thought the Conservative Party was a "big tent" party that is open to diversity of views and discussion. I thought things would be different.

Stephen, you're alienating the social conservatives that helped you get elected. You're too soft, mushy and spineless.

Democracy is about allowing the people to chose the MPs that best represent their positions on key issues. So how the heck are we supposed to know the positions of the candidates if the Conservatives won't answer questions? Do they think we're so dumb that we'll vote blindly for them? Think again Stephen. You could be in for a big surprise come election time.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Carleton students get oppressive

As ridiculous as it sounds, a motion was presented at the council meeting of the Carleton University Students Association (CUSA) in order to prohibit any group opposed to abortion from attaining club status at the University. In other words, if your student club happens to believe that abortion is wrong, you're banned. The motion will be voted upon on December 5th.

The stupid motion was presented by Katy McIntyre, Vice President of CUSA Student Services. She calls it a "Motion to Amend Discrimination on Campus Policy". So here we have it. Being opposed to abortion is a form of discrimination. What's next? Are they going to screen students before admitting them to make sure that they conform to the ideology dictated by CUSA? How about gas chambers for pro-life students? Are we in the USSR or Nazi Germany?

What about freedom of expression and thought? What about tolerance of diversity? Universities are supposed to be places of open-mindedness, designed to widen students' horizons so that they gain a more comprehensive view of the world. That was certainly my experience during my five years of university studies. This "universal" vocation is at the very root of the word "university". Is anybody paying attention?

The CUSA motion is totally in opposition with these goals, by dictating a specific belief system onto students and prohibiting activities of anyone opposed to those beliefs.

Have you noticed that these left-leaning activists make a selective interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? They only quote it when it serves their purposes. That's because they're not really interested in freedom, but rather they want to impose their views. Well, here's a news flash for CUSA and Ms. McIntyre. The Charter states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Did you get that CUSA? Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association. Those are the fundamental rights you are trying to repress.

So far, the University authorities have refused to get involved, stating that they don't usually interfere with student activities. Well, I think they need to wake up before Carleton gets labelled as a closed-minded, repressive institution where opposing views are not welcome. In particular, the University's president, Dr. Samy Mahmoud, should realize how much is at stake.

Moreover, if the motion is defeated, Ms. McIntyre should be requested to resign her position for such an intolerant attitude.

If this motion of CUSA disturbs you, please let the president know about your concerns by dropping him an email:

Dr. Samy Mahmoud President and Vice-Chancellor Pro Tempore

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Elton John guilty of religious hatred and bigotry

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. I feel rather insulted and threatened. To be frank, I'm quite afraid that my freedoms will be suppressed. The homosexual lobby continues its attack on religious people of all stripes. The name calling and verbal-engineering never seem to stop. I'm starting to fear for my freedoms.

In a discussion published this week in The Observer Music Monthly, Elton John is quoted as saying:

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays. But there are so many Christian people I know who are gay and love their religion . . . From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Now I clearly see the true face of the homosexual agenda and it frightens me. They are not truly interested in freedom of speech or human rights, because anytime someone voices an opinion that is opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, they want those views to be "banned". In other words, they will gladly suppress the human rights of other people with opposite views. They use savy rhetoric to make their opponents seem like intolerant, bigoted "hateful lemmings". Even if it's your 80-year-old grandmother that disagrees with their lifestyle, she deserves the same label as a hate-mongerer and threat to public security.

I wonder if Elton John thinks that Mother Teresa was also a "hateful lemming". How many dying and homeless people has he welcomed into his home? I am very saddened that he thinks that way.

It has become very clear now. It was never about human rights. It was only about getting social acceptance for their lifestyle and stamping out anybody who disagrees. Now that phase 1 is complete (i.e. gaining social acceptance), phase 2 has begun (stamping out freedom of speech for those opposed to their lifestyle). That's dictatorial and autocratic. I'm afraid that I might end up in jain someday for "thought crimes".

They don't even want scientific facts about the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle to be made public. It seems that scientific facts are also "homophobic" if they reveal anything negative about their lifestyle, such as higher rates of STDs, alcoholism, drug abuse, spousal abuse within homosexual couples, suicide, cancer, digestive problems... the list is very long. But they don't want you to know that. Some of these studies were conducted by homosexual researchers, so nobody can claim that they were biased.

That's very scary. Sound reason and scientific fact is being censured in order to defend the behaviour of a group that represents at most 2% of the population.

I don't hate people living a homosexual lifestyle. I want the best for them. I realize the harm that their lifestyle is causing them and society, and I wish that they would live a healthier lifestyle.

But apparently they don't want what's best for me. They'd rather I be banned. That's very frightening. The sad part is that there are very few politicians who will stand to protect our rights. We are being suppressed.

Is there nobody in the homosexual community who will reassure me? Nobody who will condemn Elton John's intolerance?

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Embryonic stem-cell research meets X-Men 3

A couple of weeks ago, the Globe reported on a "devastating" experiment at the University of Rochester involving embryonic stem cells. Once again, researchers were unsuccessful in their attempt to use stem cells extracted from embryos to treat Parkinson's disease.

When will they ever learn. Embryonic stem cell research, which involves killing a human embryo in order to extract its stem cells, has been hailed as the magic solution for all diseases. So far it has proven to be nothing more than a charlatan's snake oil. After years of research and untold millions of dollars being pumped into the field, embryonic stem cell research has still not yielded a single useful treatment on human beings. Not one. Yet the researchers press on, killing embryos in the lab in order to get their stem cells.

Adult stem cell research involves extracting a stem cell from an adult, often through the blood, bone marrow, skin, muscle and fat. As such, it does not involve any unethical killing of embryos. And guess what? It actually yields productive results. Research has allowed successful bone marrow transplants and the treatment of Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn's disease, myeloma and leukemia.

Adult stem cell research is not only ethical, but it works. So why do researchers insist on doing research with embryos? Probably because of the extra potential that these cells appear to possess as a result of their capability to transform into any kind of cell. But researchers have been unable to control this potential, and they're killing millions of embryos in their attempts.

Stem cells from embryos tend to be subject to random and uncontrollable growth. For example, cells implanted into the brain have sometimes grown into teeth or hair. Gross!!!

It reminds me of the movie X-Men 3. The good mutants discover that their colleague Jean has amazing powers, more than any other mutant. However, she is mentally disturbed and cannot control her powers for the good. She's like a wild animal doing tons of damage. In the end, the good mutants are forced to fight her and kill her in order to end her rampage of destruction and death.

It's time to pull the plug on embryonic stem cell research and focus on adult stem cells, where the real potential lies. Even if embryonic stem cell research were to yield any results someday, the fact that it requires the killing of innocent embryos would still make it unacceptable.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Abortion causes cancer

It's amazing how some people never let the truth get in the way of political correctness. The abortion-breast-cancer link is a classic example.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that women who have abortions are at much much higher risk of developing breast cancer. But you won't hear that from leading cancer prevention organizations or from the government. The abortion lobby is all-powerful in Canada, didn't you know?

For those of us who truly care for women's well-being, it is imperative that women be informed of this danger. A web site called has been setup specifically for this purpose. I encourage you to read the results of the research yourself. It's presented in easy to understand language. It could save your life. It could save your spouse's life.

Two key quotes from the site:

"Since 1957, a total of 70 studies worldwide have been published with specific data on induced abortion and breast cancer. Of these, approximately 80% have provided evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer."

"A November 1994 study by Dr. Janet Daling found that overall, women who abort their first pregnancy increase their chance of developing breast cancer by 50 per cent."

Now the pro-choice people will tell you that this is fear mongering. That's nonsense. It's a sure sign that you've made a good point when the opposition has nothing to reply except that you're fear mongering.

Some more sophisticated pro-choicers will say that the evidence is mixed. They'll quote from the 20% of the studies that didn't find a link between abortion and breast cancer, conveniently ignoring the 80% of studies that did find a link. It only takes common sense to know that you should follow the preponderance of the evidence.

Here's a quick science lesson for you. When researchers say that they "don't find a link", that is not the same as concluding that there is no link. I've done plenty of empirical research and I know how this works. In technical jargon, we call it "not rejecting the null hypothesis". Any competent researcher should know that if their study doesn't reject the null hypothesis, that does not confirm that the null hypothesis is true. It simply means that there wasn't enough evidence in their specific set of data to reject it. That's not the same thing as concluding that no link exists between abortion and breast cancer. It is possible that the link is not apparent in that specific data set due to random sampling issues or outright sampling bias (conscious or not). However, if a study concludes that there is a link ("the null hypothesis is rejected") then there is strong statistical evidence that there truly exists a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Consider this analogy. An avalanche buries part of a mountain-side town. The police arrives on the scene and begins to look for survivers under the snow. After 5 hours of searching, one team returns to headquarters and says "I didn't find anybody". Does that necessarily mean that there are no survivors? No. It simply means that they couldn't find any survivors in the area of snow that they searched. A couple of hours later, another team comes back saying "We found 3 survivors!" Does this prove that there were survivors under the snow? Yes it does, without a doubt.The truth is, militant pro-choicers don't really care about women's well-being. Read more here. They just want more abortions, either for ideological reasons or because they make millions of dollars of profits off of it.

If they really cared about women, they would inform them of all the risks.

Take care.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Having a Crisis Pregnancy?

If you or someone you know is going through a crisis pregnancy, please call one of the numbers below. You will be treated with warmth, respect and caring.

In Canada:

Canadian Pregnancy Help Line: 1-800-665-0570

In the United States:

OptionLine: 1-800-395-HELP or send an email

Take care.



Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Kill the babies? You've gotta be kidding

I was disturbed to read an editorial by , a University of Alberta student, regarding Tatiana and Krista, the two girls who were recently born attached at the head. In a nutshell, Ms. Ash says that the problem had been diagnosed well in advance, thanks to pre-natal tests, and that the mother should have aborted the children.

Well, Ms. Ash, you're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is erroneous. The mother made the right decision.

Ms. Ash clearly states that if the babies survive and have a disability, then it would have been better to spare them this pain by killing them in the womb. This is a crucial assumption that many pro-choice Canadians make. But they don't realize that this reasoning is actually very revealing about their own fears, anxieties and prejudices, rather than showing any sense of love or compassion for the disabled. Allow me to explain.

When a person makes that kind of reasoning, it reveals part of his subconscience. You discover that this person has a horrible fear of becoming disabled and cannot see himself living a happy life in that condition. He then projects his fear onto disabled persons and concludes that they would be happier if they had never been born.

The reality is that disabled people can live happy and fulfilling lives if they are treated with care and respect. I have met several of them. You wouldn’t believe how happy they can be, partly because they don’t get hung up on the stupid little things that irritate us “normal” people. Most people who think like Ms. Ash have probably never befriended a disabled person. That’s true of most Canadians.

In fact, although nobody is bold enough to say it, most Canadians have prejudices against disabled people, especially the mentally disabled. Don’t believe me? Picture yourself in a busy cafeteria having lunch with your friends. Suddenly, a mentally disabled person sits down next to you, making awkward and uncoordinated movements and slurring when they speak. How would you feel in that situation? Would you feel uneasiness, discomfort and repulsion? If so, you probably have a prejudice against the disabled, even though you won’t admit it. You’d prefer that they wouldn’t sit next to you. Their disability makes you feel uncomfortable. That’s the exact opposite of compassion. You’re reacting as if you were allergic to them.

With such a deep repulsion for the disabled rooted in their beings, it’s not surprising that many Canadians seek relief by buying into a utilitarian view of life that suggests that these people would be better off dead. It would alleviate their allergy if these people were eliminated. They would be happier if the disabled had never been born.

Humanity has dealt with this mentality before. It was called Nazism. Most people don’t know that before they starting killing Jews, Hitler and his gang decided to eliminate the disabled. Ms. Ash’s view of aborting disabled babies is certainly on the same wave-length.

As pointed out by Suzanne in her Big Blue Wage blog, Ms. Ash goes so far as to state that an abortion was in the interest of the babies. Yeah, right. Killing somebody is doing them a favor? If you think that way, maybe you need anti-depressants. As I explained above, the abortion would have been in the best interest of Ms. Ash, so that she wouldn't have to endure the sight of these disabled children.

We live in a utilitarian world where the value of your life is determined by what you can do. If you’re “normal”, then you have value. If you’re disabled, you’re a drag on society. Ms. Ash euphemistically refers to it as causing “emotional, financial and health problems”. This mentality implies that you'd better watch your back if ever you get ill or otherwise lose your independence. Society might get tired of having you around, hence the talk of euthanasia.

It’s time that we open our eyes and realize that the value of life is determined simply by the fact that you’re human. Period. Whether you can dunk a basketball like Michael Jordan or if you’re in a wheelchair, that doesn't affect your infinite value.

P.S.: You can go to the BBC web site and read about two women born in 1961 who were joined at the head and are still living happy lives today.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Poor Lorne Calvert

Lorne Calvert, the Premier of Saskatchewan, is on a mission these days. He’s fighting an uphill battle trying to convince Canadians that the Saskatchewan government deserves an extra $800 million in annual Equalization payments from Ottawa. The truth is, he doesn’t deserve a dime.

For those of you who aren’t too familiar with the platitudes of federal transfers, Equalization is a program by which the federal government makes payments each year to the poorest provinces, in order to enable them to provide reasonably comparable services as in the richer provinces at reasonably comparable tax rates.

During the last federal election, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives promised to exclude resource revenues from the Equalization formula. Concretely, that means that the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues that Saskatchewan extracts each year from its oil and gas fields would not be counted as part of its “fiscal capacity” or relative wealth, thus making the province appear poorer and entitling it to larger Equalization payments in the order of an extra $800 million per year. That’s a lot of dough.

Now the Saskatchewan government is already one of the richest in Canada, mainly due to its lucrative energy reserves. They’re doing so well that this year will mark their 13th consecutive budgetary surplus, tied with rich Alberta for the longest current streak. They’re doing so well that Premier Calvert has decided to lower the provincial sales tax from 7% to 5%, at a cost of more than $300 million per year. The province’s debt burden is among the lowest in the country, as is the unemployment rate (only 4.3%, well below the national average of 6.4%).

Clearly, Saskatchewan is doing quite well, thank you very much. To give them an extra $800 million that could be used to help poorer provinces would be ridiculous. It’s like giving a winning lottery ticket to a multi-millionaire.

Premier Calvert insists that a promise is a promise and that the feds should cough up the cash. After all, he says, Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia already benefit from such a privileged treatment for their offshore oil and gas resources. It would only be fair to extend that same privilege to Saskatchewan.

Unfortunately, those two provinces aren’t even in the same galaxy as Saskatchewan when it comes to their relative economic and fiscal fortunes. Those two provinces have much higher debt burdens, much higher unemployment rates and face much more severe economic and fiscal challenges. A case could be made that those two provinces were in a real bind and needed an extra push to help them dig their way out of their respective holes. But Saskatchewan is certainly in no need of any help. Not even close.

Please, Premier Calvert, give up your fight. Don’t waste your taxpayers’ money with your misleading ad campaign and don’t try to deprive other poorer provinces from Equalization cash they deserve.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Are they really pro-choice?

The more I learn about the pro-choice movement, the more I realize that they are anything but "pro-choice". They are really "pro-abortion". I'm talking about the militants, not the average Canadian who thinks that abortion should be legal.

The book "Abortion Practice", by Dr. Warren M. Hern, is considered an exhaustive reference tool for abortion providers. Yet it contains some disturbing material for anyone who respects women enough to provide them with all the information necessary to make an enlightened decision. The book recommends devious strategies to keep women in the dark so that they can be better manipulated into having an abortion.

Don't believe me? Let's read through the book together.

The book explains that if the abortionist needs to check the heartbeat of the pre-born baby, it should be done with a device "inaudible to the patient". Why are they hiding the sound of the child's heartbeat from her mother? Could it be because she might realize that it's a live human being and therefore decide not to have her abortion?

The book also states that "most professionals in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be informed of a multiple pregnancy." In other words, don't let the mother see the ultrasound pictures of her baby and don't give her any other information because the bare truth might lead her to change her mind about having the abortion.

The abortion procedure itself is described in gory detail in this book, but they would never let the mother know anything about it. For example, Dr. Hern explains how to soften "fetal tissues" in order to permit "easy dismemberment and removal". He goes on to describe that "a long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus, since it may be impossible to apply forceps or to do so while avoiding the thinned-out cervix."

Kind of gross, eh? Well that's the reality of abortion.

Some people who used to work in abortion clinics explain that they would often lie to patients to pretend that the baby inside them was only "tissue". When the body parts were removed from the patient, however, the patient would not be allowed to see the dismembered hands, legs, head or torso of her baby, even if she requested it. Once again, no respect for the woman.

When debating the issue of abortion in the public sphere, Dr. Hern recommends abortionists "focus on the public issue involved (right to confidentiality and professional medical care, freedom of choice and so forth) and not on the specific details of abortion procedures." Gee, I wonder why. If people really understood the horror that goes on in the womb during an abortion, a lot of people might have second thoughts. I've seen ultrasound videos where the poor baby is squirming vigorously to avoid the incoming forceps that is moving towards its throat. Not the type of picture that abortionists would like to see in the public sphere, thus unmasking the cruelty of their practice.

Some women have recounted how they changed their mind about having an abortion, just at the moment when the procedure was about to begin. Instead of respecting her decision, the staff in the clinic restrained her and tied her down so that they could go ahead with the abortion against her will. This is not uncommon. It's like a gang rape but worse, because the woman looses the baby that she wanted to keep. Absolutely disgusting.

These strategies are common practice, not just for Dr. Hern, but for the abortion industry at large.

The truth is, abortion advocates are anything but pro-choice. They make millions in profits off of women's abortions and they don't want anything to hinder them, not even women's "right to choose". They have no real respect for women or their babies.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Oh, the arrogance!

I strongly believe in equality of men and women. Discrimination against women is unacceptable and must be opposed.

However, equality doesn't imply that men and women are identical. The two sexes are different physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.

Don't believe me? Just go to any football game and observe how most of the fans are men. Go to any church and you'll see that the congregation almost inevitably has a lot more women. See how many more men subscribe to automobile and computer magazines, while women dominate the subscriptions to fashion and crafts magazines.

Notice also how women have an advantage over men when it comes to bonding with their children. When I child gets hurt and starts crying, who does the child call for first, Mommy or Daddy? There is a magnificent bond between mother and child that is irreplacable.

This isn't rocket science folks, it's just plain common sense. It's part of human nature. We need to take these differences into account before screaming "discrimination".

Unfortunately, some women in the radical feminist movement seem to believe that women cannot be happy unless they have lives identical to those of men. For instance, if a woman doesn't have a career, she's a failure. If she decides to stay at home and raise the kids, she's wasting her life and submitting to a dominating husband.

Moreover, some of these radicals don't seem to be satisfied unless women represent exactly 50% of every profession, as if women's tastes for employment were identical to men's (how many women do you know that are interested in working in the construction industry, joining the military or driving taxis?)

Radical feminists are a plague to society because they undermine the image that women have of themselves. Women must be women, not men. Whether that means having a career or staying at home, that's for each woman to decide given her particular circumstances. But she should not feel bullied into a lifestyle just because it seems to be the politically and socially correct thing to do.

By the way, there's nothing stopping men from staying at home and raising the children while the woman works. However, this would tend to go against the natural instincts of each sex and against that beautiful bond that mothers have with their children.

Do you think I'm exaggerating about radical feminists? You must be thinking: "Surely nobody is so blind as to deny the differences between the sexes". Well think again. Check out Suzanne's analysis on the Big Blue Wave blog:

Not only do these radical feminists think women should be identical to men, but they also think that all women are identical. One of them made the following observation: "I've been out in the blogosphere. A really common refrain is that feminists claim to speak for all women, but the so-con [social conservative] women say we don't. But the plain truth is that we do." There you have it folks. The feminists claim to speak for all women, even when they read in the blogosphere that many women disagree with them. They seem to have this condescending attitude that they can read into other women's hearts and minds and know what they really believe.

Absolutely ridiculous.

If we are to put an end to real discrimination against women, we must stop this paranoia of seeing discrimination under every rock and instead focus on the true instances where women are being discriminated against. Let women be women.