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
presidents_office@carleton.ca
Sunday, November 26, 2006
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?
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.
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 abortionbreastcancer.ca 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.
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 abortionbreastcancer.ca 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.
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.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)