From Life News a story not about eagle eggs, but about goose eggs – in Canada.
Excerpt:
Though majestic in flight, [geese] have become a nuisance in recent years, and with a birth rate hovering around 5 goslings per year, new methods of population control are being explored.
One such method is egg addling.
This practice, which is detailed on Environment Canada’s website as well as The Humane Society of the United States, is a process whereby geese eggs are gently removed from the nest, coated in vegetable oil and then returned to the nest. The purpose of the oil is to prevent the embryo from developing any further. Essentially, it blocks the transfer of oxygen and other gases through the shell.
The reason this practice is highly successful is because the female goose will continue laying on the eggs for a lengthy period not realizing they will never hatch. Alternatively, if the eggs are removed and destroyed, she simply will lay more eggs nearby and nullify any attempt to decrease the population. In both the United States and Canada, anyone wishing to engage in the practise of egg addling must first retain a permit from authorities.
One of the steps in the process of addling is to place the eggs in a bucket of water. If the egg sinks it is considered humane to coat it with oil. On the other hand, if the egg floats it is understood to be past 14 days of incubation which means the embryo is now viable and it would be inhumane to kill it. Regardless of your views of Canada geese, it is understandable there are some guidelines on when and how their pre-born goslings can be killed.
Juxtapose these regulations with the complete lack thereof when it comes to unwanted humans. The contrast is difficult to ignore. We have rules based on compassion to prevent people from killing a viable pre-born gosling, but no rules whatsoever when it comes to people killing unwanted pre-born people.
In Canada there are multiple ways to legally end the lives of viable fetuses; some of which are barbaric and cruel. In 2010 there were over 10,000 abortions past 13 weeks gestation in our country. These pre-born children suffered through the inhumane procedure of being torn limb by limb from their mother’s womb. Almost every other civilized nation and the vast majority of European countries provide fetal protection after 13 weeks gestation. Is this because these countries are paternalistic and oppressive? No, it’s because they care about human rights.
Canada is a very secular country, so their abortion law is very much in favor of allowing the strong to kill the weak legally through all nine months of pregnancy. Canada has no federal law governing abortion.
Keep in mind that abortion in Canada is 100% taxpayer-funded. Everyone who pays taxes there is indirectly forced to take part in this practice.
An Ohio judge issued a ruling today ordering a late-term abortion practitioner to close his abortion facility.
Previously, Ohio passed a law requiring that all ambulatory surgical centers must be licensed by the state and, in 1999, it came to the attention of the Ohio Health Department that abortion clinics were not in compliance with the law, having never applied for licensing. The OHD began the process of insuring that all abortion clinics came into compliance.
Haskell (pictured below right), a nationally-known late-term abortionist who helped develop the now outlawed Partial-Birth Abortion procedure, has fought with the state for years and he sued the Ohio Department of Health this month for ordering his Sharonville abortion facility to close because it does not meet the minimum medical safety standards in Ohio law.
[…]Officials with Ohio Right to Life also applauded the decision.
“Shutting down Haskell’s facility is a long-sought victory for the pro-life movement,” said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. “As the self-proclaimed ‘poster child’ of partial birth abortion, Martin Haskell has endangered southwest Ohio children for the last 30 years. We are hopeful that this will be the final order that puts Haskell out of business in Sharonville.”
“This decision is about common-sense, as evidenced by the non-partisan nature of this ruling,” said Krider. “We are grateful to the Ohio Department of Health and the office of Attorney General Mike DeWine, but we are also grateful to Judge Metz, a Democrat, for ensuring that abortionists aren’t skirting basic health and safety regulations.”
Although the Democrat made the right decision in this case, we have to keep in mind that Senate Democrats want to pass a law to strike down ALL state and local restrictions on abortion. If you vote for a Democrat, this is what you are voting for – unregulated abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
I also hope this news story is a lesson those pro-lifers who are opposed to incremental measures that fall short of an immediate, full abolition of abortion. We have to pursue an incremental approach – that’s what works.
Here’s a profile in National Review of my one of my favorite senators.
Excerpt:
The party’s highest-profile Texans, George W. Bush and Rick Perry, tended to match inarticulateness with cowboy swagger and lend themselves to mockery as intellectual lightweights. Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business School, yet no one naturally thinks of him as an Ivy Leaguer. The two Lone Star State governors played into the Left’s stereotypes so nicely that if they didn’t exist, the New York Times editorial board would have had to invent them.
Cruz is different — a Princeton and Harvard man who not only matriculated at those fine institutions but excelled at them. Champion debater at Princeton. Magna cum laude graduate at Harvard. Supreme Court clerkship, on the way to Texas solicitor general and dozens of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cruz is from the intellectual elite, but not of it, a tea-party conservative whose politics are considered gauche at best at the storied universities where he studied. He is, to borrow the words of the 2008 H.W. Brands biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a traitor to his class.
Democrats and liberal pundits would surely dislike Cruz no matter where he went to school, but his pedigree adds an element of shocked disbelief to the disdain. “Princeton and Harvard should be disgraced,” former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell exclaimed on MSNBC, as if graduating a constitutionalist conservative who rises to national prominence is a violation of the schools’ mission statements.
[…]In a Washington Post column a year ago, Dana Milbank noted Cruz’s schooling and concluded that his tea-party politics must be a put-on, that he is, underneath it all, an “intellectually curious, liberal-arts conservative.” Note the insulting assumption that an interest in books and ideas immunizes someone from a certain kind of conservative politics.
One of the Left’s deepest prejudices is that its opponents are stupid, and Cruz tramples on it. At hearings, Cruz has the prosecutorial instincts of a . . . Harvard-trained lawyer. Watching Attorney General Eric Holder try to fend off Cruz’s questioning on the administration’s drone policy a few months ago was like seeing a mouse cornered by a very large cat.
Cruz hasn’t played by the Senate rules that freshmen should initially be seen and not heard. In fact, he joined the upper chamber with all the subtlety of a SWAT team knocking down a drug suspect’s front door.
For people who care about such things — almost all of them are senators — this is an unforgivable offense. At another hearing, as Cruz says that the highest commitment of senators should be to the Constitution, another senator can be heard muttering that he doesn’t like being lectured. Chairman Pat Leahy (probably the mutterer) eventually cuts him off and informs him he hasn’t been in the Senate very long.
Cruz lacks all defensiveness about his positions, another source of annoyance to his opponents, who are used to donning the mantle of both intellectual and moral superiority.
And here’s a quick review of where Ted Cruz came from:
Rafael Cruz, the father of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, invigorated the crowd during tonight’s FreedomWorks Free the People event.
Describing his own personal journey escaping Cuba and working hard to build a life for himself in the U.S., the elder Cruz noted comparisons that he believes exist between Fidel Castro’s governance and President Barack Obama’s executive actions.
Upon rising to power, he said that Castro, like Obama, spoke about hope and change. While the message sounded good at the time, it didn’t take long for socialism to take root in his home country. And he paid the price.
For his part in the revolution — one that many originally assumed would yield a more vibrant country — Cruz was punished while in Cuba.
“I was in prison,” he said. “I was tortured, but by the grace of God I was able to leave Cuba on a student VISA and came to the greatest country on the face of the earth.”
Cruz described his efforts working as a dishwasher in America and paying his own way through the University of Texas. From there, he built a life for himself — one that was filled with experiences that caused him to greatly appreciate the country that had given him so much.
His plight in Cuba colored his American experience
“You can’t understand a loss of rights unless you’ve experienced it,” Cruz told TheBlaze following the speech.
His unique perspective leaves Cruz with the ability, he argues, to see the troubling signs surrounding socialism. Young people in America today, he told TheBlaze, take for granted the rights and privileges that the U.S. has afforded them.
Fascinating.
Now people always complain when I say that I am trying to find a wife with the background, education, experience and temperment to raise effective, influential children. I have a whole list of influential people I want to clone, in fact. I want a William Lane Craig, a Wayne Grudem, a Michael Licona, a Guillermo Gonzales, an Ann Gauger, a Jennifer Roback Morse, a Scott Klusendorf, a Mark Regnerus, and… a Ted Cruz. And I’ve saved the money to be able to get at least a few of those, too. The truth is that I had some of the experiences that Cruz’s father had, and if he can make a Ted Cruz, then so should I be able to. They have to come from somewhere!
Now of course it’s hard to guarantee outcomes when it comes to raising children, but there are some things you can prepare for. You can study things you hate that are hard, and save your money for Ph.D tuition. You can go to grad school yourself and publish research. You can look for a wife who shows the ability to nurture people so that they get better and rise higher. And maybe, you might just raise the next Ted Cruz. I think the old adage “if you aim at nothing, then you will surely hit it” is a good saying for marriage. If you are going to put hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of your life into a marriage, then you should aim at something. You might hit it. You’re not just there to make another person feel good – you’re there to make the marriage serve God. Raising influential, effective children is one way of doing that. But it doesn’t happen by accident. And it isn’t necessarily going to be “fun”.
WINTERY KNIGHT 