Read this awesome editorial on how pro-abortionists want to hide information from women so that they are not able to make a truly informed choice about whether to have an abortion. Are they really pro-women? Are they really pro-choice?
.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Dangers of homosexual lifestyle - Part 1
The homosexual lifestyle has been gaining legitimacy in the Western world over the past 20-30 years. The previous Liberal government contributed massively to this trend. With the legalization of same-sex marriage and the amendment of the hate-crimes legislation, the Liberal government sent a powerful message that the homosexual lifestyle should be regarded as "main stream" and must be endorsed by everybody. Stéphane Dion is a strong supporter of this position.
I think Canadians need to take a fresh look at this issue. This post is the first of a series of articles that will leave moral and religious considerations on the sidelines, in order to focus on the medical evidence and research regarding the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I will be presenting the straight facts, as reported by world-class researchers and rigorous scientific journals.
I am not seeking to condemn homosexuals. However, I recognize the fact that everybody has the power to choose their lifestyle. As such, I want Canadians to realize the risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle and the monumental mistake made by the Liberals in trying to legitimize this lifestyle. For the sake of the common good of our country, we should not be legitimizing behaviour that is very unhealthy.
For example, Canadian society is now aware of the health risks of smoking. We have many programs to help people quit and the government runs hard-hitting ads to convince people to kick the habit. As we will see, medical research has revealed that the homosexual lifestyle is even more dangerous to health than smoking. So why are we legitimizing this behaviour?
No doubt people will accuse me of being intolerant, hateful, homophobic and closed-minded. By doing so, they will in fact prove that they are the closed-minded ones, because they are unwilling to consider solid scientific evidence and reconsider some of their beliefs.
Exhibit #1: Study finds homosexual lifestyle to be more dangerous than smoking
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years. These results were presented by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23, 2007.
This has important implications for the debate on homosexual adoption. If the parents are likely to die young, is it advisable to allow them to adopt children? Is this in the best interests of the child?
I think Canadians need to take a fresh look at this issue. This post is the first of a series of articles that will leave moral and religious considerations on the sidelines, in order to focus on the medical evidence and research regarding the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I will be presenting the straight facts, as reported by world-class researchers and rigorous scientific journals.
I am not seeking to condemn homosexuals. However, I recognize the fact that everybody has the power to choose their lifestyle. As such, I want Canadians to realize the risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle and the monumental mistake made by the Liberals in trying to legitimize this lifestyle. For the sake of the common good of our country, we should not be legitimizing behaviour that is very unhealthy.
For example, Canadian society is now aware of the health risks of smoking. We have many programs to help people quit and the government runs hard-hitting ads to convince people to kick the habit. As we will see, medical research has revealed that the homosexual lifestyle is even more dangerous to health than smoking. So why are we legitimizing this behaviour?
No doubt people will accuse me of being intolerant, hateful, homophobic and closed-minded. By doing so, they will in fact prove that they are the closed-minded ones, because they are unwilling to consider solid scientific evidence and reconsider some of their beliefs.
Exhibit #1: Study finds homosexual lifestyle to be more dangerous than smoking
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years. These results were presented by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23, 2007.
- According to their data for Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 years, while the partnered gays died at an average age of 51. In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77, compared to 52 years old for the married gay men in the study.
- With respect to women, Danish heterosexual married women died at an average age of 78 years, compared to 56 years for the lesbians studied. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81, compared to 56 years for lesbians.
This has important implications for the debate on homosexual adoption. If the parents are likely to die young, is it advisable to allow them to adopt children? Is this in the best interests of the child?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Abortion when the woman's life is in danger
Some people ask: "Why don't pro-lifers accept abortion when the woman's life is in danger? Are they anti-woman?"
First of all, I would like to extend my sincerest sympathies to any couple which is faced with a pregnancy where the mother's life is in danger. That's a very difficult situation. My heart and prayers go out to them.
Obviously, when the life of the mother is at risk, it is justifiable to intervene, even if the baby dies. That is what pro-lifers believe. Only a thin veil separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers when the health of the mother is in danger. The nuance between the two is this: pro-lifers recognize that the standard abortion procedure is not the appropriate surgical intervention to be made in such a case. Another approach should be used that doesn't seek to kill the unborn baby so directly. Yes, it may have the same result of killing the baby (as a secondary effect), but you wouldn't use the standard abortion procedure (which is simply a seek-and-destroy mission against the unborn child). For pro-lifers, the intention is not to kill the baby but to allow surgeons to access fix the mother's health problem. If anything could possibly be done to save the mother while also saving the baby, it would be done. But if the two are mutually exclusive, it is justifiable to take an action that would save the mom and have a secondary effect of killing the baby.
Intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society. For example, intention makes all the difference between first degree murder and self-defense. Likewise, if you need to put your sick dog to sleep, you would choose a means of action that results in the least amount of suffering possible for your dog. I'll say it again: intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society.
Medical research has shown that there is no health condition of an expectant mother that absolutely requires the standard abortion procedures in order to save the woman's life. None. There is always another way to save the woman's life, a way that is more respectful of the unborn baby, even if the baby has to die as a secondary effect. That's the basic reasoning of pro-lifers. That's why pro-lifers believe that all forms of abortion can be banned without the risk of criminal prosecution in the case where a woman's life is in danger.
Pro-lifers are not anti-woman. We just want to make sure that no abusive measures are taken against the unborn child. So contrary to what some other bloggers may claim, pro-lifers accept that a mother's life may be saved, even if the unborn child dies. Moreover, abortion can be banned without having women worry about criminal prosecution if the pregnancy is ended because their life is in danger.
Big Blue Wave provides another intelligent and accurate discussion of this topic.
Take care.
.
First of all, I would like to extend my sincerest sympathies to any couple which is faced with a pregnancy where the mother's life is in danger. That's a very difficult situation. My heart and prayers go out to them.
Obviously, when the life of the mother is at risk, it is justifiable to intervene, even if the baby dies. That is what pro-lifers believe. Only a thin veil separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers when the health of the mother is in danger. The nuance between the two is this: pro-lifers recognize that the standard abortion procedure is not the appropriate surgical intervention to be made in such a case. Another approach should be used that doesn't seek to kill the unborn baby so directly. Yes, it may have the same result of killing the baby (as a secondary effect), but you wouldn't use the standard abortion procedure (which is simply a seek-and-destroy mission against the unborn child). For pro-lifers, the intention is not to kill the baby but to allow surgeons to access fix the mother's health problem. If anything could possibly be done to save the mother while also saving the baby, it would be done. But if the two are mutually exclusive, it is justifiable to take an action that would save the mom and have a secondary effect of killing the baby.
Intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society. For example, intention makes all the difference between first degree murder and self-defense. Likewise, if you need to put your sick dog to sleep, you would choose a means of action that results in the least amount of suffering possible for your dog. I'll say it again: intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society.
Medical research has shown that there is no health condition of an expectant mother that absolutely requires the standard abortion procedures in order to save the woman's life. None. There is always another way to save the woman's life, a way that is more respectful of the unborn baby, even if the baby has to die as a secondary effect. That's the basic reasoning of pro-lifers. That's why pro-lifers believe that all forms of abortion can be banned without the risk of criminal prosecution in the case where a woman's life is in danger.
Pro-lifers are not anti-woman. We just want to make sure that no abusive measures are taken against the unborn child. So contrary to what some other bloggers may claim, pro-lifers accept that a mother's life may be saved, even if the unborn child dies. Moreover, abortion can be banned without having women worry about criminal prosecution if the pregnancy is ended because their life is in danger.
Big Blue Wave provides another intelligent and accurate discussion of this topic.
Take care.
.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Maine school teaches kids 'transgendering'
Further signs of a society gone mad. Cony High School in Augusta, Maine, held a "Diversity Day" on February 5th. This included a workshop for the youngest students on "transgendering", which featured a female student who is currently undergoing hormone therapy so that she can pretend to become boy.
More and more, the public school system is being ruled by so-called "progressive" activists who are determined to make kids believe that homosexuality and transgendering are a normal way of life. Unfortunately, they aren't. The normal way of life is the way that is determined by nature and by our biology. No wonder our adolescents are confused to the point of skyrocketing drop-out rates and suicide rates.
Read more about it here.
More and more, the public school system is being ruled by so-called "progressive" activists who are determined to make kids believe that homosexuality and transgendering are a normal way of life. Unfortunately, they aren't. The normal way of life is the way that is determined by nature and by our biology. No wonder our adolescents are confused to the point of skyrocketing drop-out rates and suicide rates.
Read more about it here.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Liberal hypocrisy on environment knows no bounds
It's amazing the hypocrisy of those Liberals on Kyoto. After failing to reduce greenhouse emissions during their 13 years in power, they are now passing a bill requiring the Conservatives to meet the unrealistic target in about 4 years.
Here's a great post by Larry Borsato on the topic.
.
Here's a great post by Larry Borsato on the topic.
.
Income-splitting is about fairness
Income-splitting is a must for Canada. It is imperative that we remove the discrimination against stay-at-home parents that is currently built in the tax system. This not about giving them special treatment. It's about stopping the discrimination against them. The U.S. and many European countries already have income-splitting. Are we dumber than they are? What are we waiting for?
Currently, the tax system is set up so that each individual in a family files his/her own income tax return. Under this system, the percentage of your income going to taxes increases as your earnings increase. As a result, a family with two working parents each earning $30,000 will pay much less taxes than a family where one parent earns $60,000 and the other parent stays at home, despite the fact that total family income is the same in both cases.
This treatment is unfair. It discriminates against families that chose to have one parent stay at home with the kids (P.S.: it's better that your kids get raised by one of the parents rather than by an under-paid and over-worked day-care worker).
Income-splitting would fix this problem and put both types of families on equal footing.
Myths about income-splitting
1. It gives preferential treatment to "lazy" families where only one parent wants to work.
This is totally false and very insulting. As explained above, families with one earner do not get any preferential treatment. Rather, they are placed on an equal footing with double-earning families by ending the discrimination in the tax code. Moreover, it is extrememly arrogant to claim that stay-at-home parents are lazy. They work very hard and deserve that the tax system treat their family fairly.
2. Income-splitting only benefits the wealthy
This is a popular myth among left-leaning groups. They think it's their best argument but it's really just hot air. First, the truth is that every single-earning family will benefit from income-splitting. Rich or poor, all families will benefit. Even some double-income families will benefit if there is a significant gap between the earnings of the spouses.
Second, you have to remember that low-income individuals usually don't pay much tax. It's the middle-class and the wealthy that pay all the taxes in Canada. Consequently, any tax cut is only going to benefit people who pay taxes, i.e. middle-income and wealthy people. It's not a crime to reduce the tax burden of those groups, as long as low-income people aren't affected.
3. Instead of income-splitting, we need subsidized daycare.
This is a classic NDP argument. Unfortunately, it's not very consistent with their anti-rich ideology.
Think about it: which families are most likely to have the highest incomes, the families with two-income earners or the families with just one income-earner? You guessed it, two income-earners will typically be more wealthy. Families with two-incomes are also the ones that need daycare, because there's nobody home to look after the kids. So the NDP is essentially saying that we need to provide a subsidized program that will benefit the more wealthy families, while the poorer families with only one income should continue to be discriminated against by the tax system.
Call it a reverse-Robin Hood. That's not the Canada I want to live in.
In the end, it's a no-brainer. Income-splitting is the way to go.
Currently, the tax system is set up so that each individual in a family files his/her own income tax return. Under this system, the percentage of your income going to taxes increases as your earnings increase. As a result, a family with two working parents each earning $30,000 will pay much less taxes than a family where one parent earns $60,000 and the other parent stays at home, despite the fact that total family income is the same in both cases.
This treatment is unfair. It discriminates against families that chose to have one parent stay at home with the kids (P.S.: it's better that your kids get raised by one of the parents rather than by an under-paid and over-worked day-care worker).
Income-splitting would fix this problem and put both types of families on equal footing.
Myths about income-splitting
1. It gives preferential treatment to "lazy" families where only one parent wants to work.
This is totally false and very insulting. As explained above, families with one earner do not get any preferential treatment. Rather, they are placed on an equal footing with double-earning families by ending the discrimination in the tax code. Moreover, it is extrememly arrogant to claim that stay-at-home parents are lazy. They work very hard and deserve that the tax system treat their family fairly.
2. Income-splitting only benefits the wealthy
This is a popular myth among left-leaning groups. They think it's their best argument but it's really just hot air. First, the truth is that every single-earning family will benefit from income-splitting. Rich or poor, all families will benefit. Even some double-income families will benefit if there is a significant gap between the earnings of the spouses.
Second, you have to remember that low-income individuals usually don't pay much tax. It's the middle-class and the wealthy that pay all the taxes in Canada. Consequently, any tax cut is only going to benefit people who pay taxes, i.e. middle-income and wealthy people. It's not a crime to reduce the tax burden of those groups, as long as low-income people aren't affected.
3. Instead of income-splitting, we need subsidized daycare.
This is a classic NDP argument. Unfortunately, it's not very consistent with their anti-rich ideology.
Think about it: which families are most likely to have the highest incomes, the families with two-income earners or the families with just one income-earner? You guessed it, two income-earners will typically be more wealthy. Families with two-incomes are also the ones that need daycare, because there's nobody home to look after the kids. So the NDP is essentially saying that we need to provide a subsidized program that will benefit the more wealthy families, while the poorer families with only one income should continue to be discriminated against by the tax system.
Call it a reverse-Robin Hood. That's not the Canada I want to live in.
In the end, it's a no-brainer. Income-splitting is the way to go.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Liberals opposed to crackdown on sexual exploitation of women
According to a press release issued today by the Liberals, all Opposition members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women voted against a Conservative motion to change the mandate of Status of Women Canada (SOW) so that it focuses on sexual exploitation of women.
Although the Liberals tried to put a positive spin on their press release, the message was clear: the exploitation of women is not their priority. The press release conceded that this type of exploitation is unacceptable, but that SOW has better things to do with its limited resources.
What could possibly be more important than the exploitation of women? Let's have a look at the mandate of the SOW, taken directly from it's web site:
"Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights."
So the Liberals and other Opposition parties don't want to make women's exploitation the main priority (which would fall under the 2nd and 3rd areas of the SOW's mandate, as explained in the previous paragraph). That means they prefer focusing on economic, social, cultural and political issues (the 1st area).
Although the Liberals tried to put a positive spin on their press release, the message was clear: the exploitation of women is not their priority. The press release conceded that this type of exploitation is unacceptable, but that SOW has better things to do with its limited resources.
What could possibly be more important than the exploitation of women? Let's have a look at the mandate of the SOW, taken directly from it's web site:
"Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights."
So the Liberals and other Opposition parties don't want to make women's exploitation the main priority (which would fall under the 2nd and 3rd areas of the SOW's mandate, as explained in the previous paragraph). That means they prefer focusing on economic, social, cultural and political issues (the 1st area).
Does that make sense to you? Every day, women are being sexually exploited on our streets, and some of them end up dead because they didn't produce enough cash for their pimp. Shouldn't this be the priority? Why does the Opposition prefer to focus on much more trivial issues? Is their head screwed on straight? Hello? Anybody home?
I've witnessed this abuse first hand, as I saw a prostitute crying as she exited the house of one of her clients. My friend and I tried to console her and we gave her a ride home.
It's no secret that many members of the Liberal Party are in favor of the legalization of prostitution. From the top of their ivory towers, they don't realize how much pain prostitution causes women and how abused and used they feel.
Once again, the Liberals are out of touch with reality.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Heart and Stroke Foundation funds embryonic stem cell research
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada funds embryonic stem cell research as well as research on body parts of aborted babies.
Embryonic stem cell research involves the creation of human beings in laboratories and then destroying them to collect their cells.
This practice started in 2003 after it issued a "Human Stem Cell Research Policy Statement" in which it admitted the following: "In sum, the Foundation will fund research that derives stem cells from i) existing human embryos or, ii) human fetal material resulting from elective abortions".
Because of their contempt for life, pro-life groups are calling for a boycott of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
Moreover, even abstracting from the destruction of human life, the Foundation is making a poor use of its donations because it focuses on the type of stem cell research that is least promising. Despite all the media hype surrounding embryonic stem cell research, not a single breakthrough leading to treatment on humans has been achieved. The real area with potential in this field is adult stem cell research, where cells are ethically extracted from adults or from blood from umbilical cords. Countless treatments for humans currently exist based on breakthroughs made with adult stem cells. Everyday people are already benefiting from adult stem cell research.
So not only is the Foundation engaging in unethical research, they are also wasting people's money by making research in the least promising area.
For these reasons, I support this boycott and will not be making donations to this organization.
Embryonic stem cell research involves the creation of human beings in laboratories and then destroying them to collect their cells.
This practice started in 2003 after it issued a "Human Stem Cell Research Policy Statement" in which it admitted the following: "In sum, the Foundation will fund research that derives stem cells from i) existing human embryos or, ii) human fetal material resulting from elective abortions".
Because of their contempt for life, pro-life groups are calling for a boycott of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
Moreover, even abstracting from the destruction of human life, the Foundation is making a poor use of its donations because it focuses on the type of stem cell research that is least promising. Despite all the media hype surrounding embryonic stem cell research, not a single breakthrough leading to treatment on humans has been achieved. The real area with potential in this field is adult stem cell research, where cells are ethically extracted from adults or from blood from umbilical cords. Countless treatments for humans currently exist based on breakthroughs made with adult stem cells. Everyday people are already benefiting from adult stem cell research.
So not only is the Foundation engaging in unethical research, they are also wasting people's money by making research in the least promising area.
For these reasons, I support this boycott and will not be making donations to this organization.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
"I call on Dion to cure cancer by 2012"
What hypocrisy and arrogance on the part of Stéphane Dion and the other opposition parties. Yesterday, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP voted in favour of a motion calling on the government to "meet Canada's Kyoto commitments".
They obviously still don't get it. 2012 is only five years away. It is absolutely impossible to reach the Kyoto targets without plunging Canada into a serious recession.
Their motion is as stupid as a motion calling on the government to find a cure to cancer.
Besides, Dion himself was Environment Minister while Canada's emissions kept growing and growing. So if he couldn't stop the hemorrage, how can he have the gall to ask the Conservatives to fix his problem?
Obviously, the Conservatives' record on the environment is less than stellar. But to ask them to do the impossible is just a silly, immature political ploy to score cheap points.
We need a realistic plan that is doable, not some infantile rhetoric. We need real commitment from this government, not absurd posturing by the opposition.
That's not real leadership, Mr. Dion.
They obviously still don't get it. 2012 is only five years away. It is absolutely impossible to reach the Kyoto targets without plunging Canada into a serious recession.
Their motion is as stupid as a motion calling on the government to find a cure to cancer.
Besides, Dion himself was Environment Minister while Canada's emissions kept growing and growing. So if he couldn't stop the hemorrage, how can he have the gall to ask the Conservatives to fix his problem?
Obviously, the Conservatives' record on the environment is less than stellar. But to ask them to do the impossible is just a silly, immature political ploy to score cheap points.
We need a realistic plan that is doable, not some infantile rhetoric. We need real commitment from this government, not absurd posturing by the opposition.
That's not real leadership, Mr. Dion.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Dion's hidden agenda includes NEP2
The cat is out of the bag. Liberal MP Mark Holland, the Liberals' natural resource critic has revealed the Liberals' hidden agenda on the environment. He stated clearly and unambiguously on the radio last week that a Dion government would intervene to restrict the expansion of oil sands development in Alberta in order to reduce green house gas emissions.
The stunning revelation came during an interview with Charles Adler on Chorus Radio. You can hear the key portion of the interview by clicking on this link (make sure your speakers are turned on).
This is bad policy for several reasons:
The stunning revelation came during an interview with Charles Adler on Chorus Radio. You can hear the key portion of the interview by clicking on this link (make sure your speakers are turned on).
This is bad policy for several reasons:
- Once again, the Liberals are willing to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction (just like in the old days of the National Energy Program in the 1970s);
- Reducing production will result in job losses, economic hardships for thousands of families and slower economic growth;
- The economic prosperity in Alberta will be reduced, which will have spillover effects in neighboring provinces that were supplying resources and workers to fuel the Alberta boom. That means less economic activity and fewer jobs in other parts of Canada.
- Dion is unlikely to target just the oil sands. Any oil producing province could be targetted. That includes B.C., Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador;
- Lower oil output will result in higher prices across the country for gasoline and heating oil;
- Canadians who own income trusts in the oil sector are going to take another hit in the wallet book, because share prices will tumble;
- If the Liberals are willing to step on Alberta's toes, then no other province is safe either (the auto industry in Ontario should be severely concerned about draconian measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions).
Unfortunately, Stéphane Dion does not have the guts to reveal this hidden agenda openly. Fortunately it slipped out, otherwise we'd have no idea what horrors the Liberals have in store.
Hidden agendas and no guts. Dion is definitely not a true leader.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Soconblogs.com is officially lauched
There's a new aggregator in the Canadian blogoshere. It's called Soconblogs.com and it gathers a bunch of blogs that are pro-life and pro-family.
Although this is an initiative of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario, you do not need to be a member of the party or even reside in Ontario to join the gang. Everyone who holds that life is sacred and wishes to uphold traditional marriage is welcome.
Drop by for a visit today!
Although this is an initiative of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario, you do not need to be a member of the party or even reside in Ontario to join the gang. Everyone who holds that life is sacred and wishes to uphold traditional marriage is welcome.
Drop by for a visit today!
Thursday, February 01, 2007
UK government muscles out adoption groups
The UK government, in its continued mindless push towards the destruction of the family, is essentially banning Christian groups from offering adoption services.
Prime Minister Tony Blair recently stated that British Catholic adoption agencies could not expect an exemption from a new law prohibiting "discrimination" in the provision of goods and services. The so-called "discrimination" is that all adoption agencies must allow homosexual couples to adopt children, even Christian agencies who believe that such behaviour is immoral and detrimental to the child's development.
To their credit, Christian adoption agencies are not caving in to the strong-arm tactics of the UK government. They would prefer to cease operations rather than be forced to act in a manner contrary to their beliefs and the interests of the child. But the UK government probably knew that these groups would not cave in, so this new "anti-discrimination" legislation was just a sneaky way of running these groups out of the adoption business.
Well, Mr. Blair, whose going to take care of all those orphans once you've eliminated the Christian adoption agencies? And who will stand up for the interests of these poor children, that the social-engineering government wants to propel into homosexual families without regard for the obvious shortcomings of this environment for the child's development.
It's not that homosexuals are less caring than other people. Rather, the lessons of biology, sociology, experience and just plain common sense tell us that the best environment for the development of a child is a stable family with a loving mother and father. For the sake of the children, we shouldn't be allowing homosexual couples to adopt, just like we shouldn't let single parents to adopt either.
But our society is not really concerned about the interests of the child. It's all about the "rights" of homosexuals. The child is essentially an object that gets passed around like a piece of luggage.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Y108 finally comes to its senses
Y108 radio station, which reaches millions of listeners in the Golden Horseshoe area, has finally decided to allow the airing of pro-life ads paid for by the Niagara Region Right to Life group.
The move comes only days after listeners and pro-life groups complained vigorously to the station for censoring the ads (read about the original controversy here).
This once again proves that the main stream media can be responsive when challenged in the public sphere. They need to be held accountable.
The move comes only days after listeners and pro-life groups complained vigorously to the station for censoring the ads (read about the original controversy here).
This once again proves that the main stream media can be responsive when challenged in the public sphere. They need to be held accountable.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Y108 in Niagara censors pro-life ads
The Y108 radio station, which broadcasts into Toronto, Burlington, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford and all through Niagara, has decided to pull some pro-life ads purchased by the Niagara Region Right to Life group. The reason? The station received seven complaints! Seven! The decision was made by the station manager, Suzanne Carpenter.
Don't they realize that this action is a limitation of freedom of speech and positions Y108 as being hostile to any pro-life groups? I guess that makes Y108 offically pro-abortion, to the point of wanting to silence one side of the debate.
I have read the advertisements in question and they are anything but offensive. Here is the text of the four ads:
1) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....and I regret my abortion."
2) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....abortion harms more than just the baby."
3) "When they say that abortion will solve your problem...the truth is that it cost us everything. Our baby, our peace of mind and each other."
4) "When they say that abortion will solve your problems...the truth is that it can cause suicidal thoughts, depression, guilt and often infertility."
Trailer: This message comes to you from Niagara Region Right To Life.
Do you think those are offensive ads? They simply relate negative experiences of people that have had abortions. The only reason why some people complained is because they are staunchly pro-abortion and do not want to allow other views to be expressed, lest society finally wake up and realize that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.
Moreover, I would think that in a region as populous as Y108's listening area, 7 complaints should be considered as a drop in the bucket. This is far from a massive outcry against the radio station. I can't believe they are letting 7 radical pro-abortion militants manage their radio station. Where is their backbone?
I hope that this decision will be reversed, otherwise Y108 will likely incur irreparable damage to its reputation as a tolerant and inclusive radio station.
Don't they realize that this action is a limitation of freedom of speech and positions Y108 as being hostile to any pro-life groups? I guess that makes Y108 offically pro-abortion, to the point of wanting to silence one side of the debate.
I have read the advertisements in question and they are anything but offensive. Here is the text of the four ads:
1) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....and I regret my abortion."
2) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....abortion harms more than just the baby."
3) "When they say that abortion will solve your problem...the truth is that it cost us everything. Our baby, our peace of mind and each other."
4) "When they say that abortion will solve your problems...the truth is that it can cause suicidal thoughts, depression, guilt and often infertility."
Trailer: This message comes to you from Niagara Region Right To Life.
Do you think those are offensive ads? They simply relate negative experiences of people that have had abortions. The only reason why some people complained is because they are staunchly pro-abortion and do not want to allow other views to be expressed, lest society finally wake up and realize that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.
Moreover, I would think that in a region as populous as Y108's listening area, 7 complaints should be considered as a drop in the bucket. This is far from a massive outcry against the radio station. I can't believe they are letting 7 radical pro-abortion militants manage their radio station. Where is their backbone?
I hope that this decision will be reversed, otherwise Y108 will likely incur irreparable damage to its reputation as a tolerant and inclusive radio station.
New York Times finally issues a correction
The mighty New York Times has finally succumbed to weeks of pressure from various groups that were demanding that they admit that they made a huge (perhaps deliberate) error in reporting regarding abortion in El Salvador. Read more about their gaffe here.
On Sunday, January 7th, 2007, the paper issued a "correction" to acknowledge their monumental blunder. Read about the correction here. However, the correction is very weakly worded and convoluted, which could lead a reader to believe that the issue was only a small technicality, when in fact it was a major blunder by the reporter.
The evidence suggests the the NYT only apologized to avoid further embarrassement and loss of credibility, not because they were genuinely sorry for an incompetent and biased piece of reporting. In fact, NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a in May 2006 in which he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex 'marriage' leanings.
When you consider the evidence, this seems like another instance where the main stream media was trying to push an agenda and only backed down after it realized how much egg it had on its face and how much of its credibility had been lost in the process.
That's why the blogoshere needs to be active in holding the main stream media accountable.
Chalk up another victory for LifeSiteNews.com and the bloggers against the main stream media.
Be on your toes journalists, because we're watching you closely.
On Sunday, January 7th, 2007, the paper issued a "correction" to acknowledge their monumental blunder. Read about the correction here. However, the correction is very weakly worded and convoluted, which could lead a reader to believe that the issue was only a small technicality, when in fact it was a major blunder by the reporter.
The evidence suggests the the NYT only apologized to avoid further embarrassement and loss of credibility, not because they were genuinely sorry for an incompetent and biased piece of reporting. In fact, NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a in May 2006 in which he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex 'marriage' leanings.
When you consider the evidence, this seems like another instance where the main stream media was trying to push an agenda and only backed down after it realized how much egg it had on its face and how much of its credibility had been lost in the process.
That's why the blogoshere needs to be active in holding the main stream media accountable.
Chalk up another victory for LifeSiteNews.com and the bloggers against the main stream media.
Be on your toes journalists, because we're watching you closely.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Christian University Movement Making a Difference
The National Post recently reported on an event called Rise Up hosted by Catholic Christian Outreach (CCO) in Quebec City a few days ago.
CCO is a university-based movement designed to spread the Gospel on university campuses. You can read the National Post story here.
If you're a university-aged young adult and would like to get involved with CCO, please check out www.cco.ca.
CCO is a university-based movement designed to spread the Gospel on university campuses. You can read the National Post story here.
If you're a university-aged young adult and would like to get involved with CCO, please check out www.cco.ca.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
New York Times proving it is not a real news source
The New York Times has been caught red-handed with distorting the facts by LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life news agency.
The Public Editor (ombudsman) at the New York Times, in a 1,500 word article published on December 31, admits that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in exposing a grievous error in reporting by the New York Times Magazine.
In a nutshell, the Times was trying to portray an infanticide in El Salvador (where a live baby was deliberately strangled to death after birth) as an abortion that occurred at 18 weeks of pregnancy. The point was apparently to make El Salvador seem like an extremely right-wing country, where people get imprisoned for 30 years for an action that is legal in the US (i.e. abortion).
The author of the article, Jack Hitt, admits that he did not even read the final court ruling in the case, even though the ruling can be obtained very easily. That negligence and his total misrepresentation of the facts are sufficient to warrant a firing of Jack Hitt from the Times.
But it gets worse. Mr. Hitt's interview with the women convicted for the murder of her newborn was translated by an unpaid translator from the pro-abortion group IPAS. In addition to abortion advocacy, IPAS stands to profit financially from the legalization of abortion in El Salvador since it sells vacuum aspirators used for abortion and incomplete abortion. So Mr. Hitt wasn't smart enough to find an impartial translator. Again, gross negligence and awful reporting.
Read the full story here.
The latest disgusting twist in the story: The Times is considering abolishing the position of ombudsman that unmasked the Times' incompetence and pro-abortion bias!!! Read all about it here. To think that they would have the gall to abolish the position that is designed to ensure that reporting is accurate and fair.
Don't ever trust the New York Times again.
The Public Editor (ombudsman) at the New York Times, in a 1,500 word article published on December 31, admits that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in exposing a grievous error in reporting by the New York Times Magazine.
In a nutshell, the Times was trying to portray an infanticide in El Salvador (where a live baby was deliberately strangled to death after birth) as an abortion that occurred at 18 weeks of pregnancy. The point was apparently to make El Salvador seem like an extremely right-wing country, where people get imprisoned for 30 years for an action that is legal in the US (i.e. abortion).
The author of the article, Jack Hitt, admits that he did not even read the final court ruling in the case, even though the ruling can be obtained very easily. That negligence and his total misrepresentation of the facts are sufficient to warrant a firing of Jack Hitt from the Times.
But it gets worse. Mr. Hitt's interview with the women convicted for the murder of her newborn was translated by an unpaid translator from the pro-abortion group IPAS. In addition to abortion advocacy, IPAS stands to profit financially from the legalization of abortion in El Salvador since it sells vacuum aspirators used for abortion and incomplete abortion. So Mr. Hitt wasn't smart enough to find an impartial translator. Again, gross negligence and awful reporting.
Read the full story here.
The latest disgusting twist in the story: The Times is considering abolishing the position of ombudsman that unmasked the Times' incompetence and pro-abortion bias!!! Read all about it here. To think that they would have the gall to abolish the position that is designed to ensure that reporting is accurate and fair.
Don't ever trust the New York Times again.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Folly: Ontario boy has 3 parents
Various news sources are reporting today about an absurd ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that grants a boy three parents: the lesbian couple that is raising him (including his biological mom) and his biological dad, who donated the sperm.
Once again, the issue has been dealt with in a very narrow-minded fashion: only the interests of the parents count. Read through the reasons provided by the Court for their ruling and you'll see that they ignore the child's interests and only consider the parents interests.
WHAT ABOUT THE KID???!?!?!!?!!!!!
Hello? Is anybody paying attention? We have a young boy here who's future development is at stake.
Ga-zillions of studies have shown that a child develops best when raised by a mother and a father in a stable family. This ruling flies in the face of scientific research and common sense. The lesbian couple should never have been allowed to have this child.
It also shows once again how un-elected judges are taking the liberty to re-write the law. In the ruling, the judges gave themselves permission to "update" Ontario's laws to reflect new realities like same-sex couples and artificial insemination.
Society is going to keep going down hill until people wake up and realize that the child's interests also have to be taken into account.
The further we get from the traditional family, the more social problems and disturbed children we will have. Government has already redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Now the Ontario court has redefined the family to include more than two parents. Where will it end? In the case of divorced couples where both parties get re-married (perhaps more than once), we could potentially have 4 or 6 parents. None of this is good for the child.
Once again, the issue has been dealt with in a very narrow-minded fashion: only the interests of the parents count. Read through the reasons provided by the Court for their ruling and you'll see that they ignore the child's interests and only consider the parents interests.
WHAT ABOUT THE KID???!?!?!!?!!!!!
Hello? Is anybody paying attention? We have a young boy here who's future development is at stake.
Ga-zillions of studies have shown that a child develops best when raised by a mother and a father in a stable family. This ruling flies in the face of scientific research and common sense. The lesbian couple should never have been allowed to have this child.
It also shows once again how un-elected judges are taking the liberty to re-write the law. In the ruling, the judges gave themselves permission to "update" Ontario's laws to reflect new realities like same-sex couples and artificial insemination.
Society is going to keep going down hill until people wake up and realize that the child's interests also have to be taken into account.
The further we get from the traditional family, the more social problems and disturbed children we will have. Government has already redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Now the Ontario court has redefined the family to include more than two parents. Where will it end? In the case of divorced couples where both parties get re-married (perhaps more than once), we could potentially have 4 or 6 parents. None of this is good for the child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)