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.