I’ve been thinking about the Occupy movement a bit. Many (and I’m not talking about the largely incoherent folks in the tents) presented this idea that capitalism is wrong. That capitalism has led to unfairness. That capitalism has trounced the little person. That capitalism makes people greedy.

I reject this.

Capitalism, in my mind, facilitates some pretty great outcomes: A decrease in poverty. An increase in ingenuity. The fulfilling of human potential in the creation of great new inventions, great new architecture, great new music. Capitalism does this better than socialism.

However, I’m not prepared to say I don’t see problems out there in the business landscape right now.

This is because capitalism is only as good or as greedy as the people trading on the capitalist market. The problem is not capitalism, but rather, people.

This amounts to a crisis of ethics.

Enter the great Chuck Colson. I do love Chuck Colson, ever since I stumbled across Born Again, a seriously great book with a truly terrible title.

Mr. Colson has put words to what I was feeling with Doing the Right Thing.com
(This site may not be at all new, but I’ve just found it.) It highlights the lack of ethics in the world around us. The lack of consensus on what it means to be ethical. Schools that abandon the pursuit of truth. A society that doesn’t even begin to know how to ask the right questions.

If any of this resonates with you, check out or watch the clip below.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3-IiAXURfY]

The mother of unborn twins decides to abort one of them at 32 weeks because of a congenital heart problem. But they abort the wrong one, and she loses both babies.

This is one moment where a graphic visual of what aborting at 32 weeks looks like might have prevented her from making this terrible, terrible “choice.”

I almost feel like we aren’t getting the full story here. Why on earth would you disturb the peace for your developing twins at 32 weeks? I’m trying to think as someone who isn’t against abortion here… What would make that tenable to you? You are about to deliver in any case, you will end up in delivery for sure… Maybe they told her the life of her healthy baby was threatened by the life of the unhealthy one?

Or maybe I’m just giving too much credit, and the woman simply didn’t care about the ethical ramifications of killing off one twin. I’m sure she does care a whole lot, now.

61-year-old mother of four-year-old conceived through donor egg and ex-boyfriend’s sperm admits she was “too old” when she had her daughter.

Oh hindsight. Always 20/20.

Two readers sent me this clip. I’m still catching up on stuff after my time in DC so I just got to this today. It’s well worth watching all ten minutes. So settle back with a coffee and enjoy.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70&feature=player_embedded]

My two cents: I am amazed by the early stages: The first hours and days of life in the womb. When a baby starts looking like a baby, well, we all know what a baby looks like. I’m not diminishing the wonder of the final product but it is absolutely astounding that we come from two cells.

I’d love to introduce a bit more marvel and magic into our thoughts on this. While there is a place for showing how graphic and disturbing abortion is (and the vast majority of our abortions happen in or after that rapid growth phase, when the baby is starting to have fingers and toes) I almost feel that by doing exclusively that, we are diminishing the awe and wonder and replacing it with disgust.

Perhaps when I do talks I will show this video. And I will say before showing it that there is nothing graphic about it, nothing offensive and that people should just kick back and enjoy the story that is their story, too, by some miracle of creation. Not everyone believes in God, but through this you might just catch a glimpse of a creator who sees us when we are just a cell or two, coming together in patterns and forms that even the world’s greatest mathematicians can’t understand. Makes me hopeful, that.

I’ve been on the road, hence the blogging hiatus. Was at a most interesting conference in Washington DC on the topic of how to reduce poverty. Some inspirational people there, including one Eloise Anderson. Without getting into details, suffice it to say I thoroughly appreciated both her ideas and her candour in expressing them.

I’ve been seeing quite a lot of abortion news… including the National Post cover page story on Friday about abortion rates decreasing and the debate in PEI.

However, I’ll just link to this TIME article about how Catholics are all pro-choice and how “radical” pro-lifers do more harm than good. But then I’ll link to this Newsbusters article, debunking the inaccuracies in the TIME article. Nice to see someone calling out the mistakes. (Makes my job a lot easier.)

…Or completely out of touch with yourself? I’d heard rumors, water cooler stories, of celebrities who had elective caesarean sections. They didn’t want the inconvienience of giving birth suddenly, they had busy lives, they didn’t want to ruin their stage exposed flat tummies, but until I read this article I just chalked it up to being out of touch with reality.

The medicalisation of life continues apace with new National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines proposing caesarean section as, effectively, a lifestyle choice for all mothers, not just those who were only recently scorned as “too posh to push”.
There is so much worryingly amiss with this that it’s difficult to know where to start. From the point of view of medicine, the inherent risks of having an elective caesarean are becoming ever less of a concern – as long as you are only going to have two or three children. Have a larger family via major abdominal surgery and you risk rupture of the uterus and severe bleeding. Then there is the cost: some £800 over that of having your baby naturally, and this at a time when NHS services are being cut back so drastically. […]
The choice is problematical, though. Should women shun medicalisation or should they demand even more medical attention for their particular needs? Should women aim to control their own bodies or seize an apparently greater power with the help of surgery – cosmetic or otherwise? As the eminent surgeon Sir Spencer Wells remarked in 1891, “Wonderful indeed, is woman’s hydra-like tolerance of sections and mutilations.”

Recently, on a flight back from the Life 2011 conference, the woman sitting next to me asked me a few good questions.
Firstly, she asked me what kind of conference I had attended, something I think I would have hesitated to answer prior to the conference. It was either the lack of sleep (I was on the red-eye) or the weekend of communion with inspiring, openly pro-life people, or maybe some cocktail of both, that emboldened me that morning (and for the rest of my life) to answer confidently and without pause. She was older, obviously wondering what to ask next, when I asked her why it was she was away. She was working with at-risk youth in urban areas. “That’s amazing!”, I replied.

Then we went on to talk about how building confidence, having role models, all of things are the origins of preventing the abuse and sexualization of our youth, as well as a crucial part in preventing crisis pregnancy situations. Ultimately, we were working towards similar goals. I told her about the various charities in the area she could connect with, some expressly pro-life, some not, some simply community oriented that could provide her and her team support. I gave her names, phone numbers. Then she asked me a very interesting question. She asked, “Since you do all this work with women, youth and children, do you work with any pro-choice groups?”

I thought about this for awhile. I’d never been asked that before. Finally I said, “As far as I know, no pro-choice advocate groups are doing that kind of work.”

Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-crazy… Sometimes you need to get away from it all. One of my life principles is to watch Blue Crush as often as possible. Yes, alongside other films like Nacho Libre, I make time for what is truly important.

So. Today, I link to this amazing accomplishment of Hawaiian surfer Garret McNamara–who recently beat a world record by surfing the largest wave in the world! Pretty wild. I watch it and can’t believe he wasn’t crushed by the sheer force of the water–but there at the end, out he comes, still standing. There’s an allegory in there somewhere, for someone. Enjoy.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd2jtwviyC8]

A movie I will want to see. Not before I brush up on my modern British history, however, as one can’t be sure how Hollywood will slant the facts. However, love her or hate her, no one, absolutely no one, would claim Margaret Thatcher was not a strong woman.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDiCFY2zsfc&feature=youtu.be]

…can be found here. Or see below. That’s quite a list of pro-choicers who are unwilling to defend their views in public. To me, this marks the beginning of the end of the pro-choice movement. For to keep the movement alive you need to be willing to defend your values, even on hostile terrain, ie. outside the safe confines of the university womyn’s centre. Here’s why the pro-choice movement is at the beginning of the end–it has become lazy. Everyone agrees with us! We are the mainstream! There is a consensus! They are growing complacent just as pro-lifers are picking up steam, mobilizing for action and making strides in public opinion.

The other more troubling concern I have is that extreme forces (those who don’t believe abortion is debatable) will push their views on less excessive pro-choicers. What this amounts to is quashing democracy. Almost all things are up for debate in a democracy and certainly, abortion falls very much within the debatable. Saying abortion is not debatable is a complete and total cop-out.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)

ii. Heather Mallick (“pro-choice” columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)

xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland – Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation)
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)