Just when you thought the mommy wars were over, a new study shows the divide has grown over the past decade between employed and stay-at-home mothers. But the study, released Thursday, also finds one area where both groups concur: Working full time is less appealing than it used to be.
The research, conducted by telephone this past spring by the Pew Research Center, compares the responses of 414 mothers of children under 18 with 457 mothers in 1997 who responded to a similar Pew survey.
Among working mothers, 60% now say part-time work is the ideal situation, compared with 48% in 1997. Among at-home moms, 48% say staying home is ideal, up from 39% in 1997.
…
“There’s so much finger-pointing going on and that has to do with the guilt and the self-justification of the choices they make,” says Rachel Hamman, author of the 2006 book Bye-Bye Boardroom, about the choice to stay home.
“Working moms are trying to stand their ground, as are stay-at-home moms. Sacrifices are made at both ends,” she says. “Working in the home or outside the home, there are things you give up.”
Researchers say a combination of relatively new factors has intensified the split, including the trend toward “intensive parenting” at the same time employers are demanding more of workers. And, they say, mommy blogs contribute to these deeply entrenched feelings.
“All of these things are putting women in particular into a kind of all-or-nothing situation. It’s kind of forcing a polarization,” says Pamela Stone, an associate professor of sociology at Hunter College in New York and author of Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Released in May, the book is based on interviews with women who left the workplace; it suggests they had little choice but to leave because of increasing work demands and policies that were not conducive to families.
…
What hasn’t changed, unfortunately, is the workplace,” she says. “Society is asking all mothers to do it all and do it better and better and they have their hands tied behind their backs.”
Exactly. The fact is that if a mother is not at home with her children, the children are missing out. It’s a zero sum game. As a culture, we must make it financially possible for women to make a real choice in parenting their children. That’s one way. The other way is to get the culture to change its attitude towards moms who stay home. As in, “you have the hardest job in the world” not “oh, you don’t work“. If a person is shaping the morals and education of our children, she should be treated with the utmost respect and deference. In fact, relatively speaking, a mother who chooses to stay home should be esteemed more than any other person on the face of this earth. If our culture were simply to recognize the heroic work these women do, we could clean up our mess overnight.
The cost to Britain of social breakdown is running at £102billion a year, according to the Tories. The party’s review group on social policy will put a massive price on the effects crime, poor education and family break-ups have on the economy.
…
It is understood that the social justice policy commission used Government statistics to cost the overall impact of social breakdown at £102billion a year.
The total is made up of £24billion for family breakdown, £18billion for educational under-achievement and £60billion for crime.
…
The interim report recorded clear evidence that cohabiting couples were more than twice as likely to break up as married couples.
It found that three-quarters of family breakdowns affecting young children involve unmarried parents.
It also warned that a national debt crisis is causing misery for millions and fuelling family disintegration. Personal borrowing has reached a total of £1.25trillion – meaning each household owes an average of £50,000.
The study said family breakdown is happening at a greater rate than ever before and is costing the country more than £20billion a year.
Back in the last century, it was really cool for fiscal conservatives to look down at their noses at social conservatives in this country. After all, money is what talked and we fundy Socons with our “one issue” issues were such prudes, always trying to “force our morality” on society.
They told us we needed to get away from “moral issues” and concentrate on the important things like issues related to money and money and money. Everything else could frankly just go to hell.
Even today, these same losers keep parrotting this fantasy religion, refusing to acknowledge the massive social breakdown of the culture.
As we have always maintained, the family structure must be protected in order to provide the necessary foundation for a vibrant economy. An economy, to survive and thrive, needs first and foremost STABILITY. Disfunctional and broken families do the exact opposite. That has a huge effect on our competitiveness as a country, not to mention all of the money we have to fork out through government social and “crime prevention” programs to fix the garbage that we simply refused to deal with UP FRONT. Although there are a few reasons for this, it all boils down to sex and the government’s inability to realize that its management can make or break a civilization.
Trudeau told us that the State didn’t belong in the bedrooms of the nation. That sounded all groovy and slick. We got our free sex and everything was great for about 40 years. Now, in the West, things are starting to fall apart and we are slowly starting to collectively realize that sex costs us some way and some how. Either we treat it with seriousness and sobriety and sacrifice some forbidden fruit at the beginning, or we pay later in many, many ways, the least of which is the good old greenback to the point, I predict, where many western democracies are going to financially implode. In other words, pay now (through sexual restraint) or pay later through societal and financial collapse. Either way, we’re going to pay. It’s not unlike maintaining your car. If you do the preventative maintenance on a regular basis and treat it well, you’ll get a lot of mileage on it. But if you run it down and don’t put in the necessary work up front, it will simply stop running. And the cost of repair later is much higher than if you had shelled out a few bucks along the way.
So the next time some pencil neck fiscal conservative preaches to you about how important the economy is, simply invite him to join the real world and recommend to him that he educate himself on the cost of running a country when the family is falling apart.
LIVERPOOL, England, July 11, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Catholic Church in Liverpool, England, is being praised for forbidding a Catholic homosexual group to use the church facilities for an event barbecue and discussion gathering.
Quest, an organization for Catholic gay and lesbians in the UK, organized a barbecue and discussion/prayer meeting at the Liverpool University Catholic Chaplaincy of St. Philip Neri. Contrary to some reports, the Liverpool Daily Post reports, they did not plan on having a Mass, and on these grounds, the Archdiocese forbade the event from taking place on church premises.
Quest Manchester organizer Edward Down expressed his disapproval of the Archdiocese’s decision, according to news agency icLiverpool, stating “The hierarchy seems to think we promote active homosexuality and that we are some sort of seedy sex agency, but that’s not the case at all.” He also claimed that Quest is “true to the faith in every way.”
Quest, however, states in its own website history that the organization was removed in 1998 from the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales national directory of Catholic societies. In addition, among the Quest website resources, there is a link to “RainbowChristians”, a gay (LGBTQ) Christian matchmaking website. There are also several links to other websites that while being ostensibly Christian, also support an actively homosexual lifestyle.
On Monday, Daphne McLeod of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, was one of those who praised Liverpool Archbishop Patrick Kelly and the Archdiocese for making a stand against the pro-actively homosexual group. McLeod stated in the Post, “The Archdiocese has taken absolutely the correct decision. Quest is not a Catholic group because they dissent from the teachings of the Church.”
She continued, “Catholic parents who send their children to university would be aghast if meetings promoting homosexuality were to be staged at a Catholic chaplaincy. And it is quite wrong for them to try to use a Catholic place of worship to put forward their beliefs in this way.”
“Catholic doctrine is a question of all-or-nothing. You have to believe in it wholly, not just the parts you like.”
McLeod concluded, “We would welcome them if, like other organizations, they helped homosexuals to live chaste lives. We believe in no sex outside marriage-but they don’t, they encourage active homosexuality. It is incompatible with the teachings of the Church.”
For decades now, the Catholic Church has suffered under a credibility gap. On the one hand, her teaching on faith and morals has remained firm despite the constant barrage of leftoid, koolaid theologians and the sexually challenged. The conduct of the Church’s bishops and priests, however, has not been so resilient. Time and time again, we have seen more capitulation and compromise than candour and courage. It therefore comes as a pleasant surprise to see the Church in Liverpool willing to push back when the sexual zealots try to move in.
Perhaps we as a Church are coming to the realization that if you don’t actually plant yourself firmly and resist the homosexual lobby, marginalization, shrinkage, and extinction are the inevitable consequence. Ever wonder why this sort of sexual encroachment never, ever happens to a Mosque? We all know the answer to that of course, but liberals do not talk about such things at champagne soirees because it would say more about them then it does about Muslims.
But getting back to the issue at hand in the Catholic Church. There must be more spine and resistance shown by the Church if it is even to survive and be kept from being forced underground. The ironic thing is that the homo lobby is not as objectively powerful as we think. We have simply been too weak to mount a resistance, and by comparison, we look like weaklings while they look like goliaths.
Because even a mild breeze can blow over a feather.
CBC Great Canadian Wish List: The Wish that keeps on giving….exposure to the plight of the unborn. And they say there is no God.
______________________________
Abolish Abortion wins top spot in CBC Wish list
By DEBORAH GYAPONG Canadian Catholic News Ottawa
—————————————————————————
The wish to Abolish Abortion in Canada topped the CBC’s Great Canadian Wish List on Facebook with 9,543 votes.
But many pro-life voters, looking forward to promised Canada Day coverage of the winning wish on the CBC’s all-news network Newsworld, were disappointed.
“I was looking throughout the day,” said John Pacheco, a Catholic and Ottawa-based director of Social Conservatives United. He tuned into Newsworld every 15 minutes on July 1 to catch the newscast.
Selective emphasis
“If it was some kind of progressive cause like the environment or tuition fees, they would have been all over it.”
Pacheco discovered the CBC did air a report by Toronto CBC television reporter Mike Wise at 7:35 a.m. Eastern time. Though not accessible from the CBC website, someone uploaded the report to You Tube. Pacheco provides a link at his blog http://socon-or-bust.blogpost.com.
“Social conservatives have been shut out of the CBC for decades.” - Suzanne Fortin “Who watches Newsworld at 7:30 in the morning on a holiday?” said Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) executive director Joanne McGarry in a telephone interview from Toronto July 4. The report would have appeared hours earlier in the western time zones.
McGarry had sent out alerts to CCRL members urging them to join Facebook, a site originally designed to help university students network and stay in touch, and vote for the Abolish Abortion wish.
Kristen Van Houten posted the second place wish “that Canada would remain pro-choice,” which garnered 8,008 votes.
Youth choice
“I would hate to think that anyone would think the youth of Canada were only pro-life,” she said in Wise’s report.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition also sent out an alert, and urged members to also support a wish to keep euthanasia illegal in Canada. The rules allowed people to support as many wishes as they wanted.
Also in the top 10: a wish “for a spiritual revival in our nation” and a wish to “restore the traditional definition of marriage.” Other pro-life and pro-family organizations also urged their supporters to join Facebook and vote.
“The vote in favour of life is a significant one,” McGarry said.
“It’s a solid victory because whether the CBC wants to admit it or not, they had to cover it,” said Pacheco. “It shakes up their assumption about where so-called Canadian values are.”
Many who voted for the wish hoped for the kind of coverage the CBC gave to its “greatest Canadian” contest or its recent search for the “seven wonders of Canada.”
“The pro-lifers were the most successful group in mobilizing,” wrote Suzanne Fortin, a Catholic and Ottawa-based blogger who organized a campaign in support of the wish through her blog bigbluewave.ca. “We won fair and square. Social conservatives have been shut out of the CBC for decades.”
Online Video: Noted Endocrinologist Explains How the Birth Control Pill Causes Abortion
By Elizabeth O’Brien
OTTAWA, August 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – During the Humanae Vitae Conference “A New Beginning” last year, noted endocrinologist Dr. Maria Kraw explained how many so-called contraceptives actually result in fertilization and end in the abortion of a new human person during its early development.
Introducing her topic, the “Medical Consequences of Contraception,” Dr. Kraw began by stating that she refrains from using the word “contraception.” This is because it implies solely the “prevention of conception,” whereas in reality many so-called contraceptives result in a myriad of other harms, including abortion.
As a practicing endocrinologist (hormone doctor) at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Kraw focused mainly on the effects of hormonal birth control. Artificial hormonal birth control works by introducing artificial estrogen and artificial progesterone (progestins), at 4 to 10 times the dosage naturally produced by the body. These dangerously high levels trick the brain into thinking that the person may be pregnant and cause ovulation to stop.
The pill also prevents conception by thickening the cervical mucous so that the sperm can’t reach the egg. If this doesn’t work, the pill prevents the implantation of an already fertilized egg. This occurs when a new human person has already been conceived, Kraw stated, but after the artificial hormones have thinned the uterus lining. “So rather than sort of snuggling into a nice nourishing uterus to continue development,” she explained, “the uterus is hostile and the embryo is discarded.”
Most pills are combined hormonal pills with both artificial estrogen and artificial progesterone. The progesterone-only pills, however, don’t prevent fertilization, but work primarily by thinning the uterus lining. Depo-provera, for example, is a progestin that is injected every three months and strips down the lining of the uterus. Similarly, the intra-uterine device (IUD) causes “inflammation and scarring of uterine lining,” thereby preventing implantation.
Barrier methods such as condoms, sterilization, diaphragm and spermicides work by aiming “to prevent a meeting of the sperm and the egg.” Nevertheless, statistics published by Family Planning Perspectives note an extremely high percentage of “reproductive failures”, i.e. pregnancy. The birth control pill has a 12.9% pregnancy rate; condoms have an incredibly high 23.1% pregnancy rate, diaphragm 20%, depo-provera 4.2% and spermicide 25%.
“Given on average the amount of months that a woman uses artificial birth control during her reproductive years,” said Kraw, “which is a majority in the reality of North America, there will be 1.8 ‘reproductive failures’ per woman’s reproductive life.”
According to previous studies, only about 50% of pregnancies in the US are intended, Kraw stated. “Among those that reported unintended pregnancies, 50% said they were using a form of artificial birth control properly at the time of the conception. So it’s not like, ‘Oh I was on the pill, but I missed it for a week’ because that wouldn’t be considered being on the pill.”
Finally, 50% of those “reproductive failures” end in abortion.
If abortion is defined as “any interruption in the normal development of the embryo,” methods that “prevent implantation” are abortive. Breakthrough ovulation rates (fertilization occurs, but implantation fails), for example, can happen in up to one third of cycles on the pill. In combined hormonal birth control pills, this occurs from 1.7% to 28.6% per cycle, whereas with progestin-only pills, fertilization rates are from 33% to 65% per cycle.
These are relatively high rates, Kraw noted, considering that 80% of North American women have used a hormonal method for birth control by the time they finish their reproductive years.
Tragically, after discontinuing birth control, women also experience high infertility rates. Fertility rates are 26% lower after using birth control, and 29% lower after using the IUD. In addition, even the so-called “low-dose” pills cause a 2 to 6 times increased risk of blood clots throughout the body.
Kraw stated, “They started off using ten times the amount of estrogen-’We’re really going to shut down that brain’-Well, what happened? Women died in the first phase trial of these medications, but they were in Puerto Rico so, (the attitude was) ‘well…. we didn’t really have medical ethics, so we’ll just keep going and trying.’”
She concluded, “The problem is that this is still occurring even as the dose of estrogen has lowered itself to only about 4 times with the low-dose pills.”
Dr. Maria Kraw: Medical Consequences of Contraception – Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tKxWrNNCig
Just in time for the second part of this talk (above) by Dr. Maria Kraw, the report below details the refusal of some scientific and (probably most) environmentalist communities to connect the dots on the environmental and medical consequences of synthetic birth control pills and human sexual behaviour. Maybe that’s not their job. But it sure is the job of the government whose elected representatives are responsible to the electorate to investigate and take corrective action on issues of public health and safety.
Since sexual liberation (and all its attendant acts, contraptions, and devices) is the great and untouchable icon in our depraved western culture, it comes as no surprise that political correctness trumps the scientific reality.
The political correctness that currently protects and shields the abortion and contraception gods from encroachment can only be overcome when the lawsuits start to fly. Then and only then will the sex gods be displaced from their places of prominence in our society.
After all, political correctness doesn’t stand a chance when financial correctness, backed up by scientific testimony in a court of law, is duly applied.
_________________________
Hormonal Contraceptives Pollute Drinking Water – Environmentalists Turn a Blind Eye
By Hilary White
July 11, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – For some years now, reports have been growing from around the world that the massive amounts of synthetic birth control hormones being pumped into the water systems through sewage outflow is changing the sex of fish stocks. Recently, scientists have also begun to warn of the possible carcinogenic effects of the build-up of estrogenic chemicals in drinking water.
As early as 2002, the UK Environment Agency warned that fish stocks in British rivers were showing signs of gender ambiguity as a result of high levels of estrogen in the water. A survey of 1,500 fish at 50 river sites found more than a third of males also displayed female characteristics.
Research by Dr Jayne Brian and Professor John Sumpter at Brunel University’s Institute for the Environment, showed estrogenic chemicals are affecting the reproduction and gender of aquatic life and warned of the affect on the reproductive ability of humans.
The two researchers are calling for a reassessment of EU legislation regulating chemicals. “There is a cocktail of chemicals in our fresh water. We need to consider tougher safety margins to fully protect wildlife and humans.”
Two years ago, University of Colorado scientists, sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that of 123 fish caught in Boulder Creek downstream from the Boulder sewage treatment plant, 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 had both male and female characteristics.
The strange case of the trans-gendered fish is “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” University of Colorado biologist John Woodling told the Denver Post at the time.
More recently, in June this year, scientists from the University of Pittsburgh investigated the fish populations in the Allegheny River near storm sewer outflow pipes and discovered the same deformations. The region is dependent on the Allegheny system for drinking water.
Dr. Conrad Daniel Volz from the University of Pittsburgh Center for Environmental Oncology, warned that the rise in steroid hormones in the drinking water in the Pittsburgh area is a threat to health. Numerous studies have shown a link between contraceptive estrogen and hormone problems and some cancers, including testicular cancer.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that other study results have shown ambiguous gender in 85 per cent of the catfish caught on the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio rivers. Chemicals extracted from 25 randomly sampled fish caused growth of estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells cultured in a laboratory, eleven of which “produced very aggressive cancer growth”.
But scientists and environmental groups are careful to avoid recommending restrictions on artificial contraceptives.
The National Catholic Register, reporting on the issue, quotes George Harden, a board member of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, saying “If you’re killing mosquitoes to save people from the West Nile virus, you can count on secular environmentalists to lay down in front of the vapour truck, claiming some potential side effect that might result from the spray,” Harden said. “But if birth control deforms fish – backed by the proof of an EPA study – and threatens the drinking supply, mum will be the word.”
Curt Cunningham, water quality issues chairman for the Rocky Mountain Chapter of Sierra Club International, told the Register that people “would not take kindly” to the suggestion of banning or restricting hormonal contraceptives.
“For many people it’s an economic necessity. It’s also a personal freedom issue,” Cunningham said.
Vatican, Jul. 10, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The Vatican has issued a new doctrinal statement confirming the essential role of the Catholic Church in God’s plan for salvation.
The short document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), presented in question-and-answer format, addresses questions about the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Church founded by Jesus Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church.
The CDF affirms that while other Christian bodies can play a role in bringing people to salvation, it is in the Catholic Church that “the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.” The Vatican document makes a further distinction between Orthodox churches that have preserved valid sacraments, and should be recognized as “sister churches,” and Protestant groups that have not preserved the Eucharistic presence.
The document, entitled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” is approved by Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) and signed by Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the CDF.
The full text of the document is available on the Vatican web site. (Scroll down for the English-language version.)
The document opens with the observation that the teachings of Vatican II “contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology.” The teachings of the Council encouraged still further reflection on the nature of the Church, the CDF notes. However, in some cases these reflections have been marred by “erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt” about the Church’s teaching.
In the first of 5 questions posed and answered, the CDF document asks, “Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?” The answer begins with a straightforward statement: “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.”
Questions #2 and #3 address the teaching of the conciliar document Lumen Gentium (doc) (#8) that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church. The CDF document explains: “It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.” Nevertheless, only the Catholic Church is characterized by identifying marks of Christ’s Church: being one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church, the CDF continues, “though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation.” These communities can act as instruments of salvation, because of their partial participation in “that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
In the 4th and 5th questions that complete the document, the CDF draws a clear distinction between the Orthodox and Protestant denominations. The Eastern churches, the document notes, “have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist.” They are therefore sister churches, even if they fall short of universality because of their separation from the Holy See.
The Protestant communities, on the other hand, “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders.” Because these communities “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery,” the CDF writes, they “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “churches” in the proper sense.
In this document, the Pope has reiterated what the Church has always taught.
Furthermore, it is not true, as people are suggesting, that Pope Benedict is a “hardliner” while John Paul II was more of a softy. Back in 2000 and with John Paul II’s full ecclesiastical authority as Pope, the then Cardinal Ratzinger issued Dominus Iesus which stated:
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65
“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
…
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
This declaration would have never been an issue with a logical or theologically literate culture. The fact that certain people are upset with the declaration, only exposes their own internal contradictions. No offense should be taken from the declaration itself, unless of course, there is an offense taken at the claims of the Catholic Church – which is another issue entirely.
The Catholic Church defines “church” in a way that is completely unacceptable to protestants, generally speaking. So there should be no surprise that, objectively speaking, the magisterium of the Church sees their position as “defective”. This is equally true of honest protestant leaders and theologians who regard the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology and other doctrinal beliefs as erroneous.
A large part of the confusion is that we are all into hugs and kisses without defining our terms. The Catholic Church has a high esteem for other Christians, as is made evident in many of its documents, even within the text of Dominus Iesus. Protestant Christians, if baptized, are considered our separated brethren and they play “an important and significant role in the mystery of salvation”, but we must still call a spade a spade.
If you are looking for “Cumbaya theology”, then you should talk to some of the more main line protestant churches or liberal pseudo-Catholic scholars who have no authority to speak for the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
Let me give you a concrete example of how ridiculous this whole broohaha is.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist (that little wafer you some time see the priest holding up on the altar) is (not represents or symbolizes but truly is) the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. That is, when you behold the Eucharist, you are beholding Jesus Christ in His Flesh. Now, Protestants because they do not believe in the Eucharist (as defined above), do not partake of Jesus in the sacrament.
Therefore, this is a deficiency. They are lacking something in their faith walk. Why, in heaven’s name, from a Catholic perspective, is it an insult to point out the objective reality of this situation? If what we say is true, if indeed the Eucharist is what we say it is, then protestants stand in a deficient position. The same is true for all other particularly Catholic doctrines.
And as if it needs to be said again, the same is true of the honest protestant who says that, since justification by faith alone is the correct doctrine, the Catholic Church is deficient. Would any knowledgeable Catholic be insulted by the logic? Of course not.
We may indeed be insulted by a doctrine. That’s fine. But one cannot assail the logic between holding a belief is true and pointing to the consequences of not holding to that belief.
If anyone has a problem with the Pope’s comments, they don’t need to check themselves into a Catholic theology course, they need to enrol in Logic 101. They’ll get much further.
Because of the wonderful success of pro-life forces in the CBC’s Great Canadian Wish Contest, it is clear that the pro-life movement has received a much needed shot in the arm. Not only did we show that we can win the cyber war, we also showed that we had the raw numbers to take down the abortion goliath.
We must not let this momentum pass. We must use it to create a more formal structure and network to effect real social and political change in this country.
The first step is to create a first-rate, cutting-edge website for the war that is sure to come. At this time, I am accepting proposals from website designers to help me in this endeavour.
If you know of a professional, pro-life website designer who is knowledgeable in the most recent technology of website design, please have them contact me.
Some online critics of the wish list complained that it had been “hijacked by special interest groups” and that some groups were “cheating” by mounting campaigns in support of their sites, joining multiple times and encouraging Americans to join.
…
While critics pointed out that the Wish List results differ significantly from public opinion polls, Wise insisted the format was never intended to be a scientific poll and that to some extent it measured “depth of feeling.” He suggested the exercise demonstrated there are “large pockets of strong feeling” on both sides of the various issues.
______________
Correct. And that is the reason why our numbers will continue to grow and the pro-abort numbers will continue to decline. They keep aborting and we keep popping them out like rabbits. It’s not rocket science, folks. Presumably, we’ve all successfully completed Grade 1 math. So figure it out.
Here’s a little exercise for all the pro-aborts out there. Think of all of your friends in your decadent cause and count how many children they have. Do a simple average. Is it greater than 1? If it is, I would be very surprised indeed since the nation’s average is 1.48 per couple.
Now just think of all us pro-lifers who are getting down to the business of having productive (as opposed to sterile) sex. I have four daughters who will be the face of Canadian feminism in about 10-15 years time. I hope to have many more daughters too who won’t settle for sexual mediocrity, meaningless sex or the exploitation of sexually challenged men through pills, rubbers, and the euphemistic “choice” of abortion.
So as they head into pro-life activism and shape Canada’s new feminism, our pro-abort opponents will be heading into a state run retirement home being barren, bitter, and broken…and very lonely. No children. No husband. And no legacy except being known as the abortion generation. Not something to be particularly proud of.
Facebook may be the in place to blog nowadays, unless, maybe, you’re pro-abortion.
About a month ago, the CBC encouraged Canadians to participate in the Great Canadian Wish List , an unmoderated public forum on Facebook on how to improve the country.
Anti-abortionists overwhelmed the site with calls to revoke abortion rights. But when pro-choice bloggers blogged back, some found their access to the site denied.
…
Says Joyce Arthur, spokesperson for the national Pro-Choice Action Network , “It’s an experiment that went badly. A slugfest between pro-choice and anti-abortion groups is not something that Canadians want to see on Canada Day.”
And they can’t make up their mind whether the contest was meaningful to them or not.
At times they are in denial of the reality which has existed in Canada for many years now; namely, the majority of Canadians want some pretty severe restrictions on abortion. So they foolishly dismiss this reality as “meaningless” as if by merely declaring it so will shoo away the inevitable end of abortion.
At other times, like the article above makes apparent, they need to comfort themselves with…you guessed it…the “hijack” placebo. Yes, folks, you too can order it free from Dumb Choicers Inc. Whenever your opponents make you feel uncomfortable in your pro-abort position and that in fact, you are not the majority in this country, just pop one of those placebos back and you too can sit back and feel content that what happened didn’t really happen. It was all just one big hijack.
The 3.8-metre tall cross that symbolises World Youth Day has landed in Australia, as preparations begin for the event to be attended next year by Pope Benedict and an expected a half million Catholics.
The cross and an accompanying icon – a portrait of the Virgin Mary – arrived from New Zealand to be formally handed over to Australia’s Catholic leaders at an airport ceremony on Sunday attended by Prime Minister John Howard.
…
“The cross and the icon (are) a reminder that next year World Youth Day will be a magnificent opportunity for the young in their thousands, not only from Australia, but around the world, to reaffirm their faith and to remind the world and to remind this nation of the enduring relevance and resonance about the Christian message,” he told the gathering.
“It’s an occasion not only for Catholics, but for all who profess the Christian faith and the Christian belief, to celebrate the marvellous message of the Christian religion and its continuing importance to our country and the life of all of its citizens.”
I was feeling kind of guilty for slamming the CBC during these past few weeks. They did give us the opportunity to show liberals and the rest of the media elites in Canada that we aren’t the fringe of the abortion debate. We’re actually the majority in this country. I was hoping that their presentation of the Great Canadian Wish would be fair and even handed when it made it to the airwaves.
Boy was I wrong.
You can view the report here:
The report itself is actually quite decent. We pro-lifers would like to thank Mike Wise for the part that he played. No complaints there at all. He provided fair and even-handed treatment of all the contestants and the “Abolish Abortion” wish in particular.
But there were several problems with the report, which were probably outside of his control.
I forced myself to watch the CBC for a good part of the morning in hopes of seeing the Great Canadian Wish report. I didn’t see a thing. OK. It will probably be aired in the afternoon. Again, I saw nothing. Maybe it will be an evening job. Nope. In fact, the only time I could gather this being shown was from the time shown on the screen of the YouTube clip featured above. When was that time? 10am or noon, perhaps? How about 3pm when a good number of viewers might be watching? Oh no. The powers-that-be at the Christian Bashing Corporation had a special time all marked out for us. What was that time, you ask? Well, 7:35 am EST, of course! And earlier as we travel West, of course! Yes, folks, as expected, they saved prime time for us. Right at the crack of dawn!
How so very predictable for this “news” organization. You know what the CBC represents for Canada? It is the Canadian version of TV Marti. TV Marti was started by former President Ronald Reagan to broadcast ideas of freedom, liberty, and the American way into communist Cuba in hopes of destabilizing Castro’s communist regime. The only problem is that old Fidel has been largely successful in jamming the signal so that only a small, miniscule fraction of the population can actually get the channel. In other words, this huge production, costing the U.S government close to a half billion dollars, spends its time broadcasting into oblivion with its reporters and actors performing for virtually a non-existent audience.
That’s not totally unlike the CBC here in Canada. While it certainly doesn’t broadcast American values, it is funded by tax payers’ dollars, costs billions to run, and, last but not least, nobody watches it.
Certainly, after this pathetic performance by the CBC, rest assured that the crickets will keep chirping outside of social conservative households well into the future. We sure won’t be tuning into CBC anytime soon. The fact that I had to subject my TV to CBC airwaves is bad enough, but to have them pull such a dishonourable trick is…well…so predictably liberal.
OK, everybody, let’s take a poll here. If the environment or tuition fees had won (they weren’t even close, but let’s pretend OK?), how many of you think we would be seeing that report every 15 minutes around the clock for 2-3 days? Boy, I sure see a lot of hands go up. Yes siree bob. I think we are all on the same page here.
And boy oh boy, they sure did go over board in producing that report. A whole 3 minutes and 15 seconds. Not like they want to feature this on something like the Passionate Eye, or anything, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
Did you happen to see the look of the CBC announcer who introduced Wise’s piece? She had such a sour face on her that would give McCain’s lemonade a run for its money. Nothing like showing your true feelings about the results. Thanks for the feigned objectivity.
One more small note.
Mike Wise said in his piece that “Environics stopped asking about abortion 7 years ago because they say it is not on the political radar.” (see 1:56-2:03)
Amy Langstaff, the spokewoman for Environics, then said:
“The last time we measured approval for abortion, about two thirds of the Canadian public thought that abortion should be available to women.” (2:04-2:13)
Really. That’s it? No further details? Come now. Let’s have all the truth, not just part of it, Amy.
According to the polling firm that Amy works for, the October 2006 poll showed that two thirds of Canadians want to keep abortion legal, butnot into the third trimester. And 54% want it banned after three months!
Why didn’t she just say that 64% of Canadians effectively don’t agree with the unrestricted legal status of abortion in this country? That’s a lot more accurate. Maybe she works for the CBC part-time.
Once again, the CBC and the liberal clique that controls it get the booby prize for being the biggest biased political hacks one could ever hope to encounter. They are certainly unworthy of our tax dollars. If we ever EVER get into power, the first socon order of business will be to gut the CBC and throw the bums out. The sooner that day comes, the better.
CBC’s Great Canadian Wish Contest is now over. At the time of this writing, the “Abolish Abortion” wish was ahead by over 1500 votes. The results of the first five wishes at 12:00am, Sun. July 1 were as follows:
Aside from the abortion issue, three of the top four wishes were social conservative ones. If Canada is such a socially liberal country, then why are three of the four top wishes so socially conservative? I thought marriage was also a “closed” and “settled” issue. It might be settled on Church Street in Toronto and in the offices of the CBC and other media outlets in this country, but the people who participated in the contest don’t think it is settled at all. And what about Canada being an officially secular country where the religion of Christianity is relegated to closet while the rainbow religion has official state recognition? I guess that idea also went up in smoke.
But back to the issue at hand and the Great Canadian Wish of abolishing abortion. Ooooo. That sounds so good to my ears. Say it out loud with me: “The Great Canadian Wish of Abolishing Abortion”. It soothes the soul, doesn’t it? Now, our opponents will claim that the “abolish abortion” wish won because of the “fringe element” in Canadian society that “hijacked” the contest, but it is most certainly, they assure us, not indicative of Canadian society’s attitude towards a woman’s “right to choose”.
Why is this response such a crock?
First of all, this is a contest, strictly speaking. In a contest of this sort, the most important factor is the organizational and networking abilities. If you can’t get the vote out, then you lose, even if you have more votes. That is the reality. You certainly do need the raw support, of course. But if you can’t deliver your alledged majority, all the whining and crying is not going to change the result.
Secondly, poor choice bloggers have taken solace in the fact that the pro-life side might have been better organized, they claim, but that we simply don’t have the support of the general “mainstream” Canadian public.
If you have a strong stomach and you happen to peruse some of the liberal blogs and the Wish’s discussion threads, cutting through all of the cursing and swearing and contempt, you will find that they are soiling themselves rather violently over losing the contest.
So, to summarize thusfar, not only did the Poor Choicers get their butts whipped organizationally, they don’t even have the raw numbers to fall back on for consolation.
Poor, Poor, Choicers. The writing is on the wall, but they just can’t read.
Thirdly, there was not one massive organization or even a number of larger ones pulling in the pro-life vote. The pro-life vote was gathered through little groups and ministries across this country alerting members of the contest. Then, of course, there was the high school and university connection, but more on this a little later. Our victory was truly a grassroots effort, in the purest form of “grassroots action”.
Fourthly, there was no “hijack”. A hijack is illegally and unfairly imposing one’s views or beliefs on “a something” or someone else. There was nothing illegal or unfair about the pro-life win. CBC started a contest. Pro-lifers joined the contest. We expressed our wish that Canada stop the mass human genocide of unborn Canadians. We then mopped the floor with the death and dismemberment squad: We won the organizational battle. We won on votes. We won on the discussion threads. We won in the media.
We won.
Period.
Whenever we hear the left bleat and moan about such-and-such being “hijacked”, everyone else translates this into the normal language. What they really mean is “we were soundly defeated”.
Fifthly, as if it needs to be said, here’s a bit of advice to our opponents: calling us a “fringe” element doesn’t work anymore. Try something else, OK? It only makes you look rather foolish and out-of-touch with reality when you don’t give your opponent the respect that they’ve earned. Calling the pro-life constituency a “fringe” element of Canadian society is like calling the Anaheim Ducks a marginal hockey team. See that thing they’re hoisting over their heads? It’s called the Stanley Cup.
From the very beginning of this contest, we saw quite clearly that the pro-life side was consistent in its position. The wish stated “Abolish Abortion in Canada”. Period. Underlying this, of course, was the belief that life and personhood start at conception. From there, all things naturally follow. But the pro-abort side can never come to any resolution on the issue because they are all over the map on the question. They are a tower of babble when asked to answer the question of when abortion should be permissible. Some think only before 12 weeks. Others before viability. Others are fine with it up to the third trimester. Still others think it is acceptable to murder a baby right up to the moment before birth. And the more aggressive of these barbarians find no problem with infanticide 28 days after birth.
Even the pro-abort author on CBC’s wish, Kirsten Van Houten, seemed a bit confused about the current legal status of abortion in Canada when she wrote in her wish:
“In addition, given that a fetus is not considered to be a child until the second or third trimester there can be no claim that it’s murder. This is a forum who disagree with the alternative wish of making abortion illegal.”
Do the majority of the people who voted to “keep Canada pro-choice” share Ms. Van Houten’s views? We simply don’t know. That’s part of the problem with the pro-abort wish. If her wish was to keep abortion legal for the first trimester only (as she effectively implies), the numbers on the pro-abort side of the contest would drop off dramatically, if that wish were made more explicit. What are the chances of a CBC reporter asking that kind of question? Oh nevermind.
And what about the CBC? That’s another juicy side story in this competition. Last year, I talked to a woman who had had an abortion committed on her back in the early 70s. She is now part of the Silent No More campaign in Canada – a group of women who want other women to know the deep and tragic costs of abortion for women. She told me of a CBC documentary which aired in the early 70s that presented a very favourable view of abortion. That documentary was the catalyst for her in choosing abortion when she became pregnant. For forty years, the CBC has been largely responsible for propagating the cancerous social liberalism in Canada. It has shut out any voice which has sought to challenge the abortion god in this country. It has repeatedly attacked and maligned Christianity and the Canadian family.
The truth is that the CBC has rarely ever given the other side of the story on abortion. It is a virtual shill for the abortion lobby in this country. In its arrogance, however, it never dreamed that it would have to be reporting on an issue which it had thought was long dead and buried, but to save face and appear to be a legitimate news organization, it must go ahead and at least cover it’s own contest and the winner of it. And just to give you all a sense of proportion, compare the amount of time the CBC gives to the Kyoto gods and the 6th place that the environment placed in the contest versus the time it gives to abortion and Canadian’s “greatest wish”. I think that about says it all about where the CBC is in reflecting Canada’s priorities.
What eventual spin they put on the story is all but certain, I think. Still, as they say, hope springs eternal. We shall see what kind of coverage the pro-life side gets. We all know that the CBC will want to get “both sides of the story” – when it suits them, of course. Nevertheless, it is a great irony indeed that the broadcaster that was at the forefront in burying unborn children these past forty years might inadvertently be responsible for resurrecting their cause again. God indeed has a sense of humour.
And what about the participants of this contest? Who are they? They’re young. Really young. High school, university, and young adults, for the most part. In other words, it’s the kids of this country that are rising up to challenge the mass human genocide of our selfish, narcissistic and meaningless culture. The kids don’t want to rock anymore. They want to redeem and to restore and to rehabilitate the culture. They want to give genuine compassion and hope to a country that not only wants to kill its own children and future, but insists on propagating this murderous assault on countries around the world. In a form of twisted reproductive imperialism, Canada has become a brutal and murderous thug, an unwelcome bully that supports financial aid being withheld if poorer countries don’t buy into the abortion and contraception plan. If the social liberals want to complain that social conservatives don’t care enough about the poorer countries, perhaps it’s time they take the plank out of their own eyes. Extorting the poor through contraceptive and abortive imperialism is an exploitation too.
And what about the other side? What will be their legacy? For forty years, the image of the Left pushing abortion was seen as “progressive”, for “women’s rights”, and the rest of the “choice” euphemisms. But history does not render judgement in merely a few years, when the consequences of movements have not yet played out. But now that we are approaching 40 years, and the lethal consequences of abortion are now well known to everyone, history is opening her book and the judgement is one of conviction and indictment against abortion, its pimps, and its pushers:
Mass human genocide on an unprecedented scale.
That’s what the pro-abort side has supported and that is what history is going to judge, not some ficticious euphemism of “choice” that they’ve convinced themselves overrides the right to life. It’s time for them to turn away now and change their tune, otherwise they should be prepared to accept the full weight of history’s judgement for their brutal support for the violent aggression against humanity and the sanctity of human life.
Those who continue to insist on the barbarism of abortion should think twice now and carefully read the writing on the wall. They are bleeding numbers every day. They’re getting older. They’re not reproducing. They are dying. That is why abortion is dying.
But there is still work to do for the pro-life movement.
To date there is:
1) no protection for the unborn at all at any stage in this country. This is the most anarchical and backward abortion “law” in the world. It is open season on unborn children;
2) no acknowledgement of abortion being used as a weapon by men which would make it a real means of true mysoginist intimidation;
3) no acknowledgement by the political establishment of the established link between abortion and breast cancer;
4) no requirement to give women health information on the medical consequences of abortion;
5) no national media who is willing to give this question a fair presentation.
What will be the long term benefits of this Contest?
1) We have developed a formidable network through Facebook for the next of many future battles.
2) This represents the greatest pro-life victory this country has ever had. As such, it is a strong inspiration for us. It showed us that we are not the minority. And we can win in a scrap.
3) Since the pro-abort side didn’t win, it’s much worse for them then they could possibly imagine. Their demography is being aborted while ours is not. Do the math and extrapolate.
4) There are sure to be more initiatives and challenges by the pro-life community to the abortion situation in this country in the near future. I know of one personally that is going to blow the lid off of the abortion muzzle in this country. You’ll know it when it hits the media….and it will hit the media. Guaranteed.
Today, the pro-aborts and their mouthpiece, the CBC, got handed their arses on a plate. For an issue that has been pushed to the fringes for years, Canada’s No. 1 wish is to ban something that was considered nothing less than a sacrament. If you listen closely you can almost hear the pro-aborts’ grinding and gnashing of teeth.
Today, on Canada’s BIRTHday, this Canada Day is the most significant one ever. Canada is born again.
Vive le Canada.
So, in other words, the very author or the pro-abort wish, herself, seems to suggest that a fetus is considered to be “a child” in the second or third trimester. That is why she implicitly believes that a claim of murder is a legitimate point of view when an abortion is carried out in the second or third trimester. Yet, there are no laws in this country prohibiting this at all. And we know that it happens, by the laws of probability and distribution.
Entries (RSS)