There’s something to be said for a well-phrased question, like the one posed by U.S. congresswoman, Virginia Foxx.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGMJsyN92kk]
“If you lead the people with correctness, who will dare not be correct?” ~ Confucius
…but I have at least one girlfriend who is a fish rights offender. Her poor fish swims alone, day in, day out. (The Swiss are mandating stringent standards for animals. Read about it, here.)
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz_JqLPzWCU]
__________________________
Tanya adds: Oh, not just animal…plant life, too.
“None of this is a joke. The world’s leading science journal, Nature, recently reported that Swiss biologists are worried. Funding for their work might get cut off if they offend the dignity of plants.”
Oh, they’d definitely pull the plug on the ecology project I did in 8th grade!
BTW, abortion in Switzerland was legalized in 2002.
From the UK, 12 to 15-year-olds are having abortions.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which runs a chain of abortion clinics, said: “This is a tiny number of girls. Children grow up very quickly in our society. They are maturing faster physically, psychologically and socially, and society just has to come to terms with that.”
It is a small number of girls–10 to 15 each year–but we ought to be shocked, maintain that shock, increase the shock. True compassion isn’t shown by saying hey, that’s normal, get used to it! And it is entirely alarming and painful to read that someone would advocate that view. Would Furedi say that if it were her 12-year-old daughter?
This is where “women’s rights” becomes an obvious fraud. Who will start the “girl’s rights” movement–a 12-year-old is not a woman, after all.
Caught this while perusing The Corner. I don’t know what to say.
_________________________
Andrea adds: We’re speechless, apparently Manhattan Mini Storage is too. I just called the number on the ad, and was transferred to someone else in New Jersey. I asked (friendly, I promise) whether Mini Storage was actually working with pro-abortion forces or were they perhaps just given unfortunate placement on a billboard. She said it’s an old photograph and it’s not up in New York City today. And would say virtually nothing else–but she promised to call me back.
Now if you look at Mini Storage’s web site, you’ll note who they give money to if you contract with them for your storage needs. So pro-lifers will now know, well, not to.
_________________________
Right?
_________________________
Andrea again: One would think, Rebecca, but one would be wrong. No, I think this business is pandering to the Disenfranchaised Feminist and their coat hangar propaganda. Which likely means they have some interesting items in storage–things that 70s crowd is just forced to part with when they move to Manhattan–smaller apartments there, you know. Things like this or this. Or maybe even this–It would be painful be reminded of the Titanic when your movement is tanking right before your eyes.
_________________________
Tanya interjects: Upon first glance, Andrea, I mused that the pink couch (above) would make a great bassinet, especially seeing as colic is sometimes attributed to being separated from the comforts of the womb. And it’s just the right size!
But on second thought, there may be a danger that pro-abortionists, finding the newborn ensconced there safely, would revoke her rights on the grounds that she has not fully emerged from the vaginal canal.
It was last week that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a search for drugs on school grounds violates student rights. Some were concerned this meant students, on public property, would gain an undue sense of confidence in their own authority and that it would be tougher for adults and parents to enforce just about anything.
Have a read of “Kilt trip“–the journey of a perfectly delightful writer and social commentator, Dawn Eden (I’ve heard her live) into a Canadian high school and I’m sure we’ll all agree that those concerns are ill-founded. Move along, there’s nothing to see here.
__________________________
Tanya adds: How a court even goes about disallowing drug-sniffing dogs on public property (schools or elsewhere) is beyond me.
So much for the plan to introduce gun-detecting dogs in GTA schools.
Better to be sorry than safe. (That’s how the saying goes, isn’t it? I’m all confused these days.)
______________________________
Véronique adds: Well, really, what the judgment says is that one cannot go on a “fishing expedition” with a drug-sniffing dog in a public space. You must have grounds to believe that you will find drugs in the said place before bringing in the puppy.
My question: Isn’t being in a high school reason enough?
______________________________
Rebecca adds: Look, the reality is that minors don’t have the same rights as adults. This by no means gives schools, police or parents the right to abuse them, but it’s just silly to adduce from the use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools some sort of general collapse of civil liberties. Minors need parental permission to join the military, get married, and in some cases work – it would be an appalling breach of human rights if adults needed permission from a third party to do any of these, but most of us think it’s common sense that kids need parental guidance on some of these matters. Giving autonomous adults arbitrary restrictions on their freedom, religious worship and clothing would be fundamentally wrong and also illegal, and yet apart from some of the nuttier (and usually childless) left, nobody objects to parents giving their kids curfews, raising them in their own religion, and making an effort (often futile) to stop them from dressing like trollops or street urchins.
Of course, minors also have rights that other people don’t have, largely to do with the obligations of others (their parents, and when they fail spectacularly, the state) to provide them with food, shelter, education and basic security. The relationship between parent and child, or between someone acting in loco parentis and a child, is not a perfect parallel for the relationship between state and citizen, and it shouldn’t be.
______________________________
Tanya adds:
Again, though, are we then to ban drug-sniffing dogs in airports? Do we need any grounds to do so? Apparently not, says this article in today’s Gazette:
So may I ask what in the world the difference is?
It will now be 16 years old, instead of 14. With a “close-in-age” exception of five years, which will avoid criminalizing consensual teenage sex (no, I don’t believe 15-year-olds should be having sex, but I also don’t believe it’s the law’s business to discourage them from doing so). This is good news.