Sweden legalizes sex-selection abortions

Story from Hot Air.


Sweden has approved gender-specific abortions, allowing parents to rid themselves of an unwanted daughter in a closely-watched ethics case…

Last month, I noted the opposition of the abortion-rights group Center for Reproductive Rights to the same practice in China, where the state’s one-child policy makes gender selection more important for parents.  Sweden has no such restrictions; in this case, the woman already had two daughters and wants a son.  CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, putting their fright over what they call “fetus rights” over their objections to gender-specific infanticide.

At least Sweden remained consistent.  Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right.  One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.

Keep in mind that Sweden is the most secular nation in the world. What did we learn from the responses to our survey of atheists that would explain why they would support such barbarism?

We learned that atheists believe:

  • There is no such thing as human rights or human dignity, objectively speaking
  • There is no such thing as moral values or moral duties, objectively speaking
  • The purpose of life is happiness in the here and now
  • There is no ultimate significance to any actions – it doesn’t matter what you do, your end is the same
  • Our actions are biologically determined, so we’re not responsible anyway
  • There is no after-life, no accountability after death for actions
  • Morality is determined by each person’s personal preferences, or arbitrary cultural conventions

On atheism, the weak have no objective human rights or human dignity, because people are just arrangements of matter, not creatures made in the image of God. On atheism, there is no purpose for the weak, such as the purpose of freely coming to know God, that would give them dignity and value, regardless of their social utility.

So, the strong can oppress the weak, even to the point of slavery or murder, in order to maximize their own happiness in the short time they are allotted to live. On atheism, why not? Why let anyone else offend you, burden you and diminish your happiness, if you can use force to silence or destroy them?

Democrat terrorist sentenced to two years in prison

Story from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

A protester from Texas has been sentenced to two years in prison for possessing Molotov cocktails during the Republican National Convention last September.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis on Thursday also sentenced Bradley Neal Crowder to three years of supervised release.

The 23-year-old Austin, Texas, man was part of a group from Austin that allegedly planned to disrupt the convention in St. Paul last September. He pleaded guilty in January.

Gateway Pundit asks: “Maybe he’ll [enjoy an] illustrious teaching career when he gets out?”. Indeed.

Has the university become intolerant and close-minded?

This article by prestigious McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville is worth reading. (H/T Commenter ECM) She is one of the leading defenders of traditional marriage in Canada. She is a moderate social conservative. Here is a brief summary of her case against same-sex marriage. Her short article in the journal Academic Matters is about the intolerance of the leftist university elites against their opponents.

Here is the abstract:

In this edited excerpt from her Research and Society Lecture to the 2008 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, ethicist Margaret Somerville argues that universities are becoming forums of intolerance. Keeping the university as an intellectually open and respectful place is critical, she says, to finding the “shared ethics” essential to maintaining healthy, pluralistic democracies.

And here is an excerpt in which she discusses the impact of moral relativism on moral disagreements:

That is where political correctness enters the picture. It excludes politically incorrect values from the “all values are equal” stable. The intense moral relativists will tolerate all values except those they deem to be politically incorrect—which just happen to be the ones that conflict with their values.

Political correctness operates by shutting down non-politically correct people’s freedom of speech. Anyone who challenges the politically correct stance is, thereby, automatically labeled as intolerant, a bigot, or hatemonger. The substance of their arguments against a politically correct stance is not addressed; rather people labeled as politically incorrect are, themselves, attacked as being intolerant and hateful simply for making those arguments. This derogatorily -label-the-person-and-dismiss-them-on-the-basis-of-that-label approach is intentionally used as a strategy to suppress strong arguments against any politically correct stance and, also, to avoid dealing with the substance of these arguments.

It is important to understand the strategy employed: speaking against same-sex marriage, for example, is not characterized as speech; rather, it is characterized as a discriminatory act against homosexuals and, therefore, a breach of human rights or even a hate crime. Consequently, it is argued that protections of freedom of speech do not apply.

She illustrates with some examples:

We need to look at what “pure” moral relativism and intense tolerance, as modified by political correctness, mean in practice. So let ‘s look at the suppression of pro-life groups and pro-life speech on Canadian university campuses. Whatever one’s views on abortion, we should all be worried about such developments. Pro-choice students are trying to stop pro-life students from participating in the collective conversation on abortion that should take place. In fact, they don’t want any conversation, alleging that to question whether we should have any law on abortion is, in itself, unacceptable.

In some instances some people are going even further: they want to force physicians to act against their conscience under threat of being in breach of human rights or subject to professional disciplinary procedures for refusing to do so. The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently advised the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to this effect.

Political correctness is being used to try to impose certain views and even actions that breach rights to freedom of conscience; to shut down free speech; and to contravene academic freedom. I do not need to emphasize the dangers of this in universities. The most fundamental precept on which a university is founded is openness to ideas and knowledge from all sources.

She spends the rest of the paper arguing for a system of “shared ethics” that grounds open, respectful debate between disagreeing parties. I hope this catches on before secular-left moves from censorship to outright violence, against those who would dare to disagree with them.

A short bio of Margaret Somerville

Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor in the Faculty of Law and a professor in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University and is the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. In 2004, she received the UNESCO Avicenna Prize for Ethics in Science and in 2006 delivered the prestigious Massey Lectures.

Friday night funny: waterboarding, same-sex marriage and capitalism

Our first Friday night funny this Friday comes to us from Scrappleface, by Scott Ott. He reports on a story that you may not have heard about this week, the CIA’s offer to help Nancy Pelosi remember when she voted for the same interrogation techniques that she now opposes.


In an effort to clarify exactly when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew that the U.S. employed enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, on terrorists, the CIA today offered to question the California Democrat.

“With the passage of time, memory gets clouded,” said a CIA source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “But we have learned how to clear away the clouds, and bring into sharp focus the relevant details.”

Rep. Pelosi initially said she had not been briefed on the harsh interrogation methods, then said she thought the briefings she did receive were theoretical in nature, and now her associates say the Speaker knew in early 2003, but didn’t protest out of respect for ‘appropriate’ legislative channels.

“A woman in Nancy Pelosi’s high-stress position, can get overwhelmed by the constant drip, drip, drip of information,” the CIA source said. “It’s easy to lose isolated details among the battery of facts that assault her daily. But a little time alone with one of our seasoned counselors should remedy that.”

Our next funny is also from Scott Ott. It turns out that proponents of same-sex marriage are not at all happy with the way that heterosexuals undermining the sanctity of same-sex marriage.


The boom in childbirth by unwed mothers has some American homosexuals concerned about the sanctity of their newly-minted marriages, according to a spokesman for the Defense of Gay Marriage Association (DOGMA).

Some 40 percent of all children are now born to unwed mothers, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Among minority groups, the news is even more stunning. Black single Moms give birth at twice the White rate, and Hispanic solo mothers bear babies at triple the rate.

“All of this is bad news for the institution of traditional gay marriage,” said the unnamed source at DOGMA. “It’s hard not to see this as another example of homophobia. Gays finally start getting the right to marry, and what happens? We see straights abandoning the practice. Heterosexual bigots are looking at marriage and apparently saying, ‘That’s so gay!’”

The advocacy group claims that no society has survived the collapse of the institution of marriage, and it backs a Constitutional amendment forcing cohabiting couples to wed.

I would support a Constitutional amendment banning out-of-wedlock birth – as Captain Capitalism noted in an earlier post, unwed motherhood is nothing but child abuse. Co-habitation, no-fault divorce, government-run day care, and drugs for controlling children are anti-child policies. I am against pre-marital sex. I am for abstinence and chastity. I value the rights of children over the “happiness” of irresponsible adults.

And our final story this week is from IMAO.us. I used to spend hours reading over his old “In My World” posts. I just love things that are totally made-up in which very serious people do very silly things. Frank links to this video in which you can learn more about capitalism than you can while getting a Law degree from Harvard!

Happy Friday!

UPDATE: I cannot let this go unblogged: What happens with Jim Treacher joins Nancy Pelosi and Haiku?

You get Pelosiku!

From Hot Air and Michelle Malkin:

What’s this trigger do?
Ouch, my right foot really hurts
Let’s try the left one


As I tell my tales
Watch me blink out in Morse Code:
“I’m a lying [bleep]”


I am not lying
Except for what I just said
And what I’ll say next


I’ve been a liar
A lot longer than Barack
But without his gift

Leave yours in the comments!

How to engage pro-abortion commenters and win

Neil from 4Simpsons posted a MUST-READ exchange with a pro-abortion commenter here. It’s entertaining and informative. I’ll just paste in a few excerpts below, so you can get the flavor of the exchange.

Here’s an effective exchange: (the challenger is in italics)

Then I suppose you’re equating an aborted fetus with a conscious, adult human? Something doesn’t seem quite right there; unless, you are actually thinking of the adult human beings the unborn will grow into when you say abortion kills the same kind of human beings genocide and the other transgressions do.

What kind of fetus are you speaking of? If it is a human fetus then she is a human being at a particular stage of development deserving of having her life protected. She isn’t an adult, but neither are toddlers. Your rationale could plug in human toddler instead of human fetus and claim that the “toddler will grow into” being an adult, but it would still involve killing an innocent human being.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned something about equating an unborn human being with one outside the womb. If you’re saying the fertilized egg is a human being are you saying there’s no difference between us and that egg?

Of course there are differences: Size, level of development, environment and dependency. My claim is that none of those differences gives rise to the right to destroy those human beings.

And here are couple more funny parts:

I suppose it depends on how you define “me,” or “I,” or “you.” I’m pretty sure when we say those things, we are talking about the present us. If you really want to get philosophical, the “me” you will respond to after I post this will technically not be the same “me” as the one who wrote this because some time has elapsed and we are all in a constant state of change/growth.

Try committing a crime then sharing that philosophy with the judge. I’ll come visit you when I’m doing prison ministry ;-) .

I’ll spell it out for you: There is a 1:1 correlation between the human fetus and the subsequent human being. If you arm had been ripped off in utero, you’d only have one arm now. That was you in your mother’s womb, not a potential you. It was you at that particular stage of development.

And the last one before you click over to read the whole thing!

Honestly, Neil, I think abortion is a sad state of affairs for any society; that circumstances permit individuals to find themselves in the process of bringing about human life they did not intend to is sad.

That is a bad argument. These people had sex. Pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex. They didn’t wake up one day and realize they’d had an accidental in vitro fertilization or an immaculate conception.

Do you find it sad that actions have consequences? Boo-hoo. But don’t kill an innocent human being over actions you regret.

The pro-life issue is such a fun issue to debate, because it’s like the big-bang, fine-tuning and habitability arguments from the progress of science. The facts are all on our side, the delusions are solely theirs. And the more science progresses, the worse it gets for them. All you need to do is prepare and study like Neil has, and one day you’ll be as effective as he is in this exchange.

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: