Tag Archives: Cowardice

News

Cowardly Hedy Fry backs away from her challenge to debate pro-lifers

2 Comments

From the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform.

Excerpt:

Last month, Member of Parliament Dr. Hedy Fry was reported in a CBC article as saying she was ready to debate abortion with anyone. When one of her former patients, international pro-life speaker Stephanie Gray, took her up on her offer, Dr. Fry declined….

Here is the actual voice mail backing out of the debate:

The pro-lifer debater comments:

“It’s disappointing that a member of parliament who has been so vocal in support of abortion won’t publicly defend her views in a forum where they will be challenged,” said Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Gray pointed out that it’s not likely abortion will be debated in the House any time soon given the political hot potato the topic is. Gray continued: “If Dr. Fry is so confident that she’s correct, why not air her views against mine? Those on the side of truth should have nothing to fear. I don’t. I welcome the opportunity to engage her or any abortion advocate in examining the issue.”

Yeah, because the abortion position has nothing to do with reason – it has to do with selfishness. A man and a woman conspire to pursue pleasure and to then kill an innocent child in order to avoid being inconvenienced in their careers or finances. That’s what abortion is. It’s slavery, only worse, because you actually kill the innocent person for money, rather than just making them work.

Children are the natural consequence of having sex. If the man and the woman are BOTH not ready for a baby, then they should not be having sex. A baby has the best chance of surviving and thriving with two married parents who have kept a home for a couple of years. So grown-ups have the responsibility to take care of providing the environment for children who are the natural result of the sexual act. It’s no use complaining about unexpected babies – if you have sex, you need to be ready for a baby. And it’s no use caterwauling about how recycling makes you a good person if you cannot love the helpless innocent people that you create with your own selfish choices.

Imagine you were trimming your hedge and you noticed a baby bird with a broken wing on the ground. You don’t ignore the bird and you certainly don’t kill it. You take it to a vet, you pay to splint the bird’s wing, and you take it home and nurse it back to health. Because it’s small and it’s weak and it needs you and it’s on your property and it’s your responsibility and that’s all there is to it. There isn’t any decision to make once you find it – you just deal with it. Because you have moral character and you don’t care that much about being happy – you care a lot more about being good. You desire for happiness is irrelevant. You want to be good. Whatever it takes.

UPDATE: This story was picked up by Canada’s National Post, the best national newspaper in Canada.

Commentary

Should parents try to protect their children from all risky behavior?

5 Comments

Story from the National Post. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

A few suggestions for anxious parents who typically hover on the edge of the playground with a first aid kit: Let your child lick a 9-volt battery, just to see what happens. Encourage them to try to drive a nail. And by all means, let them play with fire.

These are among the activities extolled in a new book entitled 50 Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do), the latest in a growing backlash against hyper-parents who try to insulate their children against every scrape, perceived threat and potential disappointment. Underlying this less-is-more parenting philosophy is a belief that today’s bubble-wrapped children are missing out on the way childhood used to be. The Dangerous Book for Boys and The Daring Book for Girls became sensations by teaching the video-game generation such potentially perilous skills as building a snow fort or using a bow and arrow.

[…]The book’s title is “deliberately provocative,” he says, and it is meant as both a guidebook for fretful parents who want to loosen up and a “call to action for over-protected children,” with instructions on safe ways to experiment with dangerous things.

“We create a false impression in our minds that children are in peril all the time and everywhere, when in fact, according to the most recent studies, this is the safest time in history for children,” he said. “There couldn’t be a better time to be running around outside playing.”

If I ever got married, I wonder what my wife would think of me encouraging all our children to do dangerous things? I’ve heard that wives also don’t like it when fathers try to get their children to adhere to moral rules, either (because of moral judgments and sanctions, you know). But I think danger and moral rules are good for children, in the long run. I don’t want a cowardly moral relativist for a child.

Anybody here have the Dangerous Book for Boys? Or the Daring Book for Girls?

News

Obama refuses to support Britain over Falklands dispute

1 Comment

Story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration’s decision to remain neutral in the dispute between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands is a shameful decision that will go down very badly across the Atlantic. As The Times has just reported, Washington has point blank refused to support British sovereignty over the Falklands, and is adopting a strictly neutral approach.

In the words of a State Department spokesman:

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

The remarks had echoes of an earlier statement by a senior State Department protocol official who, when asked about the shoddy treatment of the British Prime Minister in March last year, responded:

“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Even by the relentlessly poor standards of the Obama administration, whose doctrine unfailingly appears to be “kiss your enemies and kick your allies”, this is a new low. The White House’s neutrality in a major dispute between America’s closest friend and the likes of Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez, Argentina’s biggest backer, represents the appalling appeasement of an alliance of anti-Western Latin American regimes, stretching from Caracas to Havana – combined with a callous indifference towards the Anglo-American alliance.

Over the course of the last year, we’ve seen a staggering array of foreign policy follies by this administration, from the throwing under the bus of the Poles and the Czechs over missile defence to siding with Marxists in Honduras. But this latest pronouncement surely takes the biscuit as the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally.

Alienating our closest allies, and encouraging war.