Archives for March 2009

Good letters in the Calgary Herald today, here and here.

Pro-life doctors–of whom there are thousands in Alberta–believe induced abortion is the deliberate destruction of a child’s life. Asking them to participate in abortion is, from their perspective, asking them to kill a developing child. Demanding that they refer patients to other physicians or clinics to have an abortion is, in their minds, demanding they be complicit in murdering an unborn person. Some might claim these rigorously trained doctors are scientifically deluded in their belief about the unborn child’s humanity, but just the same, do patients want their own doctor, under pressure from administrators, to do what the doctor believes is a medical atrocity? If physicians are willing to abandon their deeply held scientific convictions, what else will they be capable of?

Indeed, what else? And here’s the thing–“pro-choice” doctors have deluded themselves into believing they are neutral. My “choice” dictates, ie. they’ll help me kill my baby if I so desire, otherwise not. That’s not a doctor I personally want. I want a doctor who understands what his/her beliefs are, knows what the bias is and can identify that and explain it to me, as such–this is my position, and it is based on x, y, z.

Pro-choice doctors are not Switzerland (if abortion were international politics).

R.E.A.L. (Responsible for Equality and Liberty) is holding a “Save Women Now” Rally on Sunday.

Every day, women are under attack by Islamic supremacism that supports and approves of oppression, mutilation, and murder of women. According to leaders and followers of Islamic supremacism, they have the right to commit violence against women. Islamic supremacism views oppression of women as a legitimate “right,” violence against women as a legitimate “right,” and murdering women as a legitimate “right.”

Humanity’s inalienable human rights include equality and liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the freedom to pursue happiness. No one has the “right” to oppress women, no one has the “right” to violence against women, and no one has the “right” to murder women. Humanity must defy the dark and twisted vision of Islamic supremacists who believe that they can act without challenge and without consequences.

More information here.

Here you have it. Bias is sometimes unavoidable.

A pretty thorough smack-down:

But how does the young non-mother have standing to sue? She came to the clinic to have the baby removed from her body and destroyed. The baby was removed and destroyed. What’s the actual harm to her? She didn’t like the method?  The issue seems to be that she was forced to witness the ordeal that was a direct, if messy, consequence of the procedure she requested.  Would it have been better to see the baby taken out in parts? Injected with poison and born dead?

Her lawyer claims she was ambivalent to begin with. Sure. But so what? She made her decision. Her lawyer responds, “She came face to face with a human being. And that changed everything.”  While that is emotionally plausible — even likely — again, so what? She was aborting the baby precisely because it was a human being which, she says, she was not mature enough to care for. What was it she thought would happen?

If you think that sounds harsh, blame the “pro-choice” activists who say nothing should prevent a woman from exercising her “right” to “choose” without ever getting into the details of what, exactly, that “choice” entails.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Thanks for posting this, Brigitte.

You know, once in a while a story will surface–the specific one I recall from about three years ago was from India–about the bones of babies found in the gutters on streets, either after infanticide or abortion. The response tends to be one of horror and shock from this part of the world. Because over here, we conceal the remains and body disposal. How civilized.

That mother went in to have her baby killed. Her baby was killed. Et voila: that’s what we here in North America call a screaming success and an advancement of women’s dignity. And yes, I do blame those “honest, informative” abortion providers. The girl involved is not without her share of the responsibility. But if she’s been told her whole life this is a valid option, a workable solution, and a compassionate course of action–and then meets face to face with a gruesome reality–well, it’s a gruesome reality the abortion provider fails to see because he/she is so used to it.

Off to get some valium now. (This stuff, for all the fun we have blogging, does make me angry.)

In Australia, extra-marital relationships can lead to “divorce” litigation:

Mistresses can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds under the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the “mistress laws”, which were passed by the Senate last November and came into effect today (March 1).

The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims.

The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria – such as being in the relationship for at least two years – will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.

The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the “future needs” of partners, as it does for married couples.

Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved.