What Father De Souza discussed in the piece Andrea linked to yesterday.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr7CppUHNQc]
Can you imagine Canadian politicians discussing abortion like this?
Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn’t. Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?
_____________________________
Tanya asks: Did Obama just say he’s supportive of abstinence education?
We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity. And providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”
That does not sound like what a Planned Parenthood advocate should be spouting. Lest we forget…
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__ctD48nfQ]

Aren’t you glad to live in a world that can produce such kindness? Me, too.
h/t The Corner
_______________________________
Patricia adds: I don’t know how people manage to find these stories but I’m thankful they do. This one really brightened up my day.
A handy dance tutorial for dudes. Most amusing.
_______________________
Andrea adds: So this is what happens when professional dancers enter academia. Hope the fellow doing the demonstration isn’t Dr. Lovatt. If he is, I can understand why he had to leave his professional dance career behind.
Dr Lovatt, who was a professional dancer before he went into academia, filmed 15 short video clips of himself performing different dance moves and blurred out his physical features so that only his movements were visible.
And that’s how they reward you? [warning: contains way more information than you probably ever wanted]
Maybe we should go back to the 1950s…
____________________
Andrea adds: It is too much information. And all that “too much information” is contained in a mere headline. You don’t even have to read “the story.” Amazing.
____________________
Véronique says: My 12-year-old daughter says “Let’s buy me an iPod so I can download my own music and I say “Let’s not” and I have second thoughts and think “Poor kid is going to grow up an outcast” then I read this “article” and am reminded that if it comes to being like them or being an outsider, we have to root for outsider.
This is the world I’m trying to raise kids in. These are the people my kids’ friends look up to.
We’re in so much trouble…
I have said before that I’m a free-speech absolutist, à la Voltaire. But I make two exceptions: libel, and incitement to violence. This, if true, falls into the second category, and he should be prosecuted. Not because he’s targeting gays (I’d say the same if he were targeting blue-haired biddies), but because he’s advocating violence. Ain’t no room for that in a civilized society.
________________________
Andrea’s blood pressure just went up: So I click over to check the story Brigitte is commenting on, note that some fellow is advocating for gay people to be executed and further that these are classified as “extreme Christian views.” These are not Christian views, extreme or otherwise. Not in any way, shape or form. I don’t care what this guy calls himself. His is not a Christian view. Admittedly, my blood pressure skyrocketed before I had the chance to read the article so perhaps he is calling his views “Christian.” But plenty of people call themselves Christ and we generally see them in the psych wards across this great nation. News editors shouldn’t be allowed to perpetuate false stereotypes simply because they’re ill-informed and have an ideological anti-faith position to push. His views are criminal, not Christian–and I think I need to go breathe, breathe…in and out…
____________________________
Véronique adds: Andrea, you posted what I was in the process of writing! At the end of the article, they mention how the teachers and students just looked stunned as the conversation carried on but let it go on nonetheless. I couldn’t help but feel so sad for the youngsters who were introduced to extreme-wing-nutism that day.
____________________________
Andrea: I’d comment again, but I’m typing with one hand, still holding “downward facing dog,” while breathing deeply and thinking positive thoughts.
____________________________
Rebecca adds: And every time a clown like this gets the spotlight, the thoughtful, reasoned argument against gay marriage becomes that much harder to advance. Which, I have no doubt, is part of why he gets so much press. What were the hosts thinking, inviting this guy to a forum attended by children? It’s not as if he has no track record of irrational or hateful behaviour.
Giving him a platform is just playing into his hands.
What’s next? Promoting abortion?
OTTAWA — Stephen Harper is ruling out re-opening a debate over abortion law for a future Conservative government, saying today there are too many other important issues to manage.
“We have a lot of challenges in front of the country,” the Conservative leader said this morning during an announcement about arts and fitness funding for children.
“We have a difficult world economy as we all know. That has to be the focus of the government and I simply have no intention of ever making the abortion question a focus of my political career.”
He said that some of his caucus members would like him to do so, and so would some Liberals: “But, I have not done that in my entire political career. Don’t intend to start now.”
“I have been clear throughout my entire political career I don’t intend to open the abortion issue,” he said. “I haven’t in the past; I’m not going to in the future.”
_______________________________
Andrea adds: I never had any expectation of Harper on abortion, something I’ve publicly stated before. What bothers me is this:
After today’s event, however, Mr. Harper’s spokesman Kory Teneycke clarified in an email to The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper would “whip” his front bench so that none of his cabinet ministers would support any private member’s bills that could re-open the debate.
Whipping his cabinet? Ah, freedom of speech, apparently such a tenuous concept that even the party that was supposed to not be like the Liberals is, well, just like the Liberals. Get ready for some splashy new fountain to appear in Harper’s riding, maybe a small golf course… At least Chretien never pretended to be decent.
__________________________
Rebecca asks: How has it come about, that we can’t even have a debate about this? Are feminists and “choice advocates” so insecure in their convictions that they fear an honest discussion? (And if so – what does this tell us?) Is there any other issue about which so many Canadians disagree, that is nonetheless off-limits politically in all parties?
_____________________________
Andrea is trying to think positive: At least he has not said the dreaded “I believe in a woman’s right to choose,” those special words that mean in point of fact that a politician has never given abortion any thought at all and is rather running scared from the likes of Judy Rebick.
_____________________________
Véronique adds: I’ll just say that I’m glad my Conservative candidate is pro-life: I can still vote for him even if the party at large is now officially pro-choice. About the matter of conscience and the issue of “whipping” your cabinet, nobody said having convictions was going to be easy: ask Michael Chong who gave up his seat in cabinet because he didn’t support the “Quebec as a nation” motion (wow, that’s snappy, I should write a song). I think that any cabinet minister with a backbone would rather resign — or refuse a seat in cabinet to start with — than being told what to vote on such an important issue.
____________________________
Tanya has to say it: We all can’t fight every battle all the time. In my mind, Harper won’t win any election with pro-life guns-a-blazing. And then where would we be? Slow and steady wins the race. He’s setting the pace for eventual Conservative majority government in this country.
In the meantime, we need to keep up the dialog. We need to make sure no one gets away with calling this a closed debate. That being said, Harper, you don’t need to “open the abortion issue.” It’s already open. So please find some new wording for the arms length you choose to keep with it.
A neat column:
If Sarah Palin is John McCain’s secret weapon, let her go, whoever is holding her back. And, frankly, if it turns out that the “authentic” Palin of rallies and the Republican convention is just good speech delivery in a woman with some good spirit, I want to know that sooner rather than later. (Mitt’s still available. Someone in Washington who can actually run a business and knows something about the economy will come in handy once the federal government owns the U.S. banking system.) But if the Palin we know and love and have projected our hopes for sanity in American politics is the real Sarah Palin — then come out from the shadows, woman. You’re the one who is going to win this election. Be yourself. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Katie Couric interviews Sarah Palin, and as far as I can tell does not ask ONE single question about sex, pregnancy or abortion. I’m impressed…