The intention of adding this "Special Feature" section to this website is to have at the beginning of the website an essay or a news item or other feature which will stimulate thought and discussion about a current issue or about one which needs to be considered more deeply. Those submitting comments on this section of the website should mention the title of the particular feature they are commenting on, since the special feature may be expected to be changed from time to time.A Political Candidate's Thought-Provoking Article on AbortionIt is not the intention of the editor of this website to promote any particular candidate or any one party during the election campaign period that Canada is going through this spring of 2011. But it is lamentably infrequent that a candidate in an election publishes a comment which is thoughtful and which says something that is not a run-of-mill comment of the partisan sort. So it seems worthwhile to publish the following comment by Mike Schouten, Christian Heritage Candidate for South Surrey-White Rock: Location, Location, Location In Canada where you live might determine if you live.
There are locations
in our country where it is not safe to be, where the law offers no protection.
A fetus located
in the womb has no protection under Canadian law. It can be aborted at any time through the nine months of pregnancy.
Yet when it changes location
and travels a few inches out the birth canal, it is suddenly recognized as a precious little person.
How can a change of location
make someone a person? Do you become more human (or less) when you move from one room to the next? How can where you are have any bearing on who you are?
Medical advances (see below) make it possible to take a fetus completely out of its mother, treat the child, and then place it back inside mom to continue developing until it comes to term.
Under our present law, this child is recognized as a person when it leaves its mother’s womb but stops being a person when it returns inside.This is nonsense.
We need laws that protect all babies… wherever they live.The results of studies and procedures concerning fetal surgery are being published more regularly and medical professionals like Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, are very excited about this “step in the right direction” concerning fetal health. Dr. Simpson is an obstetrician and geneticist at Florida International University, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the research published in the New England Journal of Medicine , into the benefits of performing fetal surgery designed to improve the mobility of babies diagnosed with spina bifida.
Dr. Darrell Cass, co-director of Texas Children’s Fetal Center is the corresponding author on a study documenting the first successful cases of open fetal surgery to treat fetal lung malformations in the Southern U.S. It is because of these advances that what were, ” previously a grim diagnosis is now operable and there is hope for these babies to lead a healthy life”, said Dr. Cass.Links to News and Comments of Interest on External sites:
(Inclusion of these news items and comments does not indicate approval or disapproval.)
"President Obama's Refusal to Defend Marriage
"Setting aside the president’s personal opposition to DOMA and the history of his contradictory positions on marriage over the years, yesterday’s announcement ostensibly reduces the legal interpretation and enforcement of the United States Constitution to but two people:
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder."
"How Said Musa's Case Got Attention
"A Red Cross employee has captured international attention after being imprisoned and sentenced to death in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity."
"President Obama deflects when confronted with Planned Parenthood Corruption
"China Flexed Its Muscles with US as Biggest Creditor: Wikileaks
"Video Friday Five: Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson
"Was Maurice Vellacott Right About Abortion?
"Catholic group reports death of Chinese underground bishop Leon Yao Liang at 87
"US 'Sold its Birthright' by Ignoring China Human Rights Abuses for Economic Gain: Report
"Barbara Kay: The end of the gender wars
"The Status of Women Must be Abandoned: An Egregious Use of Taxpayers' Money
"Biological Explanation: How Abortion Causes Breast Cancer
"Opposition to Obama’s Health-Care Plan: Appropriate or Misdirected?
Conservatives in the United States are generally opposed to what they believe are Obama’s health-care plans. It seems to this observer (who, admittedly has not had time to examine the matter in as much detail as he would like), that some of the opposition is definitely misdirected. As a result, from a socially-conservative point of view, the real dangers are in danger of being ignored, and an opporunity has been give to besmirch legitimate opposition to health-care measures that are objectionable.
Equating Obama’s administration to a Nazi regime and the like adds more heat than light to what should be a sharp but logical debate. Disseminating rumors which appear to be of dubious validity and treating those rumors as established facts does not help the debate either.
It seems to me that a nation with the wealth of resources of the United States should be able to ensure a reasonable level of health-care for all citizens. What is needed to achieve that level is a matter for debate: a debate that should take into account the negative tendencies of government beaurocracies to be wasteful and to accumulate inordinate power.
Whatever health-care plan the citizens of our neighbours to the south choose should take into consideration the shortfalls of national systems already in place in other countries, including the sometimes unconscionable wait-times that some Canadians with painful conditions such as broken hips have had to endure.
One of the things that pro-life groups in the United States need to do is to make sure that abortion is not one of the procedures paid for by the nation. Another thing to insist on is that absolutely no health-care money go to counselling for or providing euthanasia.
A coalition of a very large number of groups in the U.S. is concentrating on ensuring that abortion is not promoted by any new health-care plan. The coalition has taken the name “Stop the Abortion Mandate.”Credit Where Credit is Due
If we have been critical of the apparent dismissal of certain concerns, it is only right and fair that we draw attention to evidence we see of the present Conservative government's attention to other concerns of socially-conservative Canadians.
Of course, the emphasis on allowing parents a freer choice as to the care of their children is one policy which was evident from the beginning of this government's mandate, and contrasts favourably to other parties' advocacy of a one-size-fits all take-it-or-leave it day-care plan.
The raising of the age of sexual consent, a long-overdue measure to make it more difficult to exploit the young, is one accomplishment that is a great credit to this government.
The measures I have mentioned point to one hopeful fact: The present Conservative government in Canada is more favourable to socially conservative issues than is any other party represented in the House of Commons (though we recognize that some individual non-Conservative members deserve credit also).Latest Action of BC College of Teachers Against Chris Kempling Highlights the Perilous State of Freedom in Canada
The British Columbia College of Teachers, in its latest act of harassment, has again cited Dr. Chris Kempling for conduct unbecoming a teacher. Their list of complaints is a revelation, not of Chris's wrongdoing, but of the totalitarian attitude this body, which like the human rights commissions and tribunals which have lately come into prominence, functions as a kind of court without having the limitations placed on it which a "real" court would have.
Chris writes: They have cited me for participating in a CBC radio interview where I quoted the Bible saying that homosexual behaviour is a barrier to salvation, for contributing an essay discussing the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives (published in the Calgary Herald on December 29, 2003), for publishing a scholarly article in a German family journal on the topic of homosexuality, for offering orientation change therapy as part of my private counselling practice and mentioning this in a radio interview, and, incredibly, for "knowing" that an article written by Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray in support of me was posted on the party's website. They also cited me for being "the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party.
As we have said before, the action taken against Chris Kempling is significant because it represents a threat to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, political freedom, and the freedom of the educational system. It should be a warning to Canadians of all stripes who value our national heritage.
Please read Chris Kempling's letter
on the BC Parents and Teachers for Life webpage entitled "Standing Up for the Threatened Rights of a Free Society. Then consider what you can do to help. Right now, we can think of at least two things we can all do. Write on behalf of Chris and talk up his case with friends and acquaintances likely to be supportive of him when they know his story. And, to the extent that you are able, donate to the fund which has been set up primarily to help him. To encourage this, we reproduce immediately below the directions for sending him financial help:I Don't Have to Respect Your Viewpoint
By Ted Hewlett
More mischief is wrought by the inaccurate use of words than we can easily imagine. Take, for example, the little phrase "I respect you viewpoint, but . . . ," when the speaker or writer goes on to make it clear that he actually disagrees with the viewpoint because it is founded on false premises or results from false reasoning. How is it possible to respect such a viewpoint? What most rationally-thinking people really mean when they use that phrase is that they respect the person apart
from his viewpoint.
The words "I respect your viewpoint, but. . ." have become so common that they have almost become an obligatory means of expressing goodwill towards an opponent in an argument. Yet the careless use of the phrase probably reflects one of the most basic flaws in today's thinking. Those who want to repress all moral judgments are wont to accuse those making such judgements of not respecting those who differ from them, and they can make this accusation plausibly because of society's habit of equating respect for a person with respecting his viewpoint.
The sloppy thinking implied in the phrase in question is responsible for the fact that those engaging in homosexual behaviour are so easly able to get away with accusing those who disagree with such behaviour with hating them. The perhaps unstated argument goes, "You do not respect my viewpoint, therefore you do not respect me. Therefore you hate me." The thinking is about as logical as saying that because one disapproves of behaviour associated with alcoholism one hates alcoholics.
One way to clarify discussions in our society is to clarify our words and therefore to clarify thinking. Since clear thinking helps the thinker to arrive at truth, those who value truth should, of all people, be champions of clear expression.Orville the Outcast
By Stephen J. Gray
[Now only at the article's author's blog at http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2009/03/orville-outcast.html .]The Myth of Trade Union Democracy
[Now only at the article's author's blog at http://www.oocities.org/graysinfo/tradeuniondemo.html .]