Friday, January 27, 2017

Take 2.1

Let me begin by saying that I'm going to make a greater attempt to be more active on this blog. This of course is not a tremendous task given that I had a total of zero posts in 2015 and only two posts in 2014.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of needing to say something about the dramatic changes that are taking place in our culture. I find that I can no longer sit idly by, having conversations in my head about what is going on, without in some way putting out there for wider consumption.


The whole point of this blog was to provide me with a space for working through thoughts and ideas and if someone out there decided to engage, great, if not, at least it provided me with a means for working out what I believe.

With that said, I don't know that I'll be looking to post long pieces all the time. Sometimes it will simply be short commentary on what I see around me.



With that, let us begin.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Political effectiveness

Apparently Justin Trudeau has made the bold and daring move of removing Liberal Senators from the Liberal Party Caucus. The net effect of this seems a bit nebulous at the moment as by the end of the day they had declared that these newly minted Independent Senators would continue to support Justin and the Liberal Party, keep their affiliations within the Senate, and moved to ensure that they were still the Official Opposition in the Senate ensuring their continued bonus monies.

James Cowan, who had been the party's leader in the Senate, says the formerly Liberal senators will continue to support Trudeau and call themselves the Senate Liberal caucus.
...
"I think not a lot will change. I think that there is a perception perhaps that senators in our party and in the other party are under the control of folks on the other side. That's not been the case in our side. We obviously talk, consult with them and we have had the privilege of being part of their caucus up to now. We won't have that anymore. But we'll continue to talk to them and I suspect that not a great deal will change."
And my personal favorite was a tweet from Liberal Independent Senator, Mobina Jaffer:

"Mood upbeat in Liberal Senate caucus. Now we will serve Canadians more effectively," Mobina Jaffer said on Twitter.
So am I to understand that removing Senators from a political party somehow makes them more effective politicians? Or to put it another way, being a member of a political party makes one a less effective politician.

Good to know.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

I just don't get it

A few days ago people across North America and the world took a moment to remember those who died as a result of the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001. It was the worst act of terrorism committed against the US with nearly 3000 people losing their lives. To this day it is not forgotten and to this day it is used as a rallying cry for those who would encourage the US to be ever more vigilant in defending its interests domestic and abroad.

It was a tragedy and one that I am in no way trying to diminish or disparage.

But given the way this one event has seared the soul of America one would think that an even greater tragedy would not go by with the minor level of attention that it does receive.

Imagine if you would if last year more than 300,000 Americans were murdered. Killed in cold blood. Imagine if we knew who the murderers were but chose not to bring them to justice. Even worse imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets in order to argue that these people did nothing wrong and in fact their murderous actions should be defended by the government.

It reads like an absurd scenario, one not worthy of consideration or a moments thought.

Unless of course you understand that I'm speaking about abortion.

Yes, I believe that abortion is murder and it pains me that each year approximately 3/4 of a million innocent people are murdered in cold blood and our society would argue that this is okay.

One of the most important questions that we have to answer as a society is: who is a person?

The abortion promoter would argue that a baby inside a woman's womb is not a person. This is the stance of the government. So if a woman is pregnant and decides to have an abortion it is a legal procedure that does not injure a person.

Yet if I were to kill a pregnant woman I would be charged with murdering the woman and the child who was in her womb.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."[10] In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008).

So let me get this straight, if a woman kills a "child in uterus" its called an abortion and its legal. If a pregnant woman is harmed and her "child in uterus" dies, it is murder.

How does that make any sense?

It seems that the distinction is the intent of the woman. In the first case the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is not a person and so when killed its not murder. In the second case the woman wants to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is a person and therefore a murder was committed.

How convenient.

What kind of society does one expect to have when we allow 16 year old girls to be the arbiter of what does and what does not constitute person - hood?

To make this tragedy of epic proportions even more heinous is that now people are using the twisted logic of abortion to argue that even if a child were born it could still be killed and be legal.

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion. 
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor. 
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” 
"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. 
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?” 
"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.” 
Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?” 
Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

So what she is saying that even if the baby is born, lying on a table, kicking and screaming, it is still not a person because only a person deserves to be protected by the law whereas this person's fate should be decided by the woman and her doctor and if they should choose to kill it, that should be okay.

We are a sick and perverse generation that argues for and defends the right to murder their own children. If we were killing babies by burning them alive it would be barbaric and everything should be done to stop such a horrific crime against humanity. Call it a "choice" and use the term "abortion" and its all okay.

Don’t you see that children are God’s best gift?
    the fruit of the womb his generous legacy?
Like a warrior’s fistful of arrows
    are the children of a vigorous youth.
Oh, how blessed are you parents,
    with your quivers full of children!
Psalms 124:3-5

The first command that was given to man by God was to be fruitful and to multiply; to have children. Yet here we are killing 2150 of these innocent children every day!

Solomon once wrote:

There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

How wise he was.