So here it is...

One of the historical arguments against abortions--particularly late term abortions--has been that such openness to terminating human life as late as the third trimester could lead to a call for termination of life immediately after birth. And here it is:

LONDON -- A leading British medical college has called on the health profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has said that "active euthanasia" should be considered to spare parents the emotional and financial burdens of bringing up such children.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," it says in a formal submission. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

Morals aside, there are present at least a few problems in this short passage alone . Firstly, what is "very disabled?" Will that be a term defined by doctors at the time of birth? What if the disability is caused by the doctor during the birth? How much proof will a doctor have to provide to "prove" that the killed child had a 'qualifying disability?' Secondly, the 'informal submission' claims that this procedure will prevent late term abortions. If these children aren't going to be considered "aborted babies," then what do we call them? Beyond that, the argument in favor of abortion is often that the "fetus isn't a child, but a developing children, and since it is developing and therefore dependent on the mother's body to survive, it must be the mothers choice." If we are going to allow, to quote directly from the 'informal submission, "interventions to kill infants," where do we draw the line?

The call comes in the college's submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is conducting an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborns. The submission states: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management of options available to the sickest of newborns."

It is not officially calling for the introduction of active euthanasia, but wants it openly debated. The proposal has been supported by several leading geneticists and medical ethicists.

Joy Delhanty, a professor of human genetics at University College London, said: "I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health."

But John Wyatt, a consultant neonatalologist at University College London hospital, called the proposal "social engineering."


"Once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice, you change the fundamental nature of medicine," he said.

This should not be a debate. It is utterly despicable that such horrific ideas should even be brought up for debate. Abortion has lead us to a complete and total devaluation of human life to the point where we now are debating whether or not it is morally OK to murder a child once he or she (the culture of abortion that I have grown up in has labelled babies as "it" as a generic term. I think this is probably an intentional attempt to paint the child as being less than human.) has been born. It is simply shocking and disgusting. How long before this debate leaves Great Britain and is taken up by our own Liberal "progressives?" God help us.

Christian boy murdered

Another horrible atrocity in Iraq. This time against a young Christian boy. From WND:

A website in Assyria is confirming that a 14-year-old Christian boy who was working a 12-hour shift maintaining an electric generator has been murdered by Muslim insurgents.

The Assyrian International News Agency said the tragedy was reported by an Assyrian language web page at http://www.ankawa.com./

The youth was identified as Ayad Tariq, who lived in Baqouba, Iraq, and was at work on Oct. 21 when a group of "disguised Muslim insurgents" went into the power plant shortly after his shift began at 6 a.m.

The website reported the insurgents asked him for his identification and, according to other witnesses who hid and stayed alive to report on the attack, questioned his identification card's reference to him as a "Christian."

Are you truly a "Christian sinner," they asked.

"Yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner," he replied.

The insurgents then called him a "dirty Christian sinner," grabbed his limbs and held them while beheading him, the witnesses reported.

[...]

Current estimates are that there are about 2.5 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq.

Kenneth Scott LaTourette wrote in "A History of Christianity" that the Assyrian Christians became the first nation to accept Christianity, and one of the largest missionary-sending peoples in Christian history.

"The Assyrian Christians are one of the last remaining Christian communities in the Middle East," said Rev. Ken Joseph Jr., of the Assyrian Christians organization.

Tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians have fled their traditional homelands in recent months, officials confirmed.

Now I suppose there are two ways to look at this. The first is to say, "My God, that poor boy was the same age as my little brother." With that in mind, I suppose I could say that this is just horrific. Then I could ask, "Is this what we're fighting for? A people that would behead a 14 year-old boy because of his views? Isn't this enough? There's no way that people like that are deserving of any more of the blood of our soldiers. There is no hope for a nation that would routinely allow this to happen. This can no longer be our find.

Indeed this was my first reaction--how can we allow our troops to fight and die any longer for people like this, but looking at things through those lenses is reactionary. We cannot allow that actions of the terrorists--which is what these folks were, cold blooded, murdering terrorist monsters--to dictate our continuation of this mission. Yes, I know, that sounded like something straight out of a Bush speech, but it is the exact and definite truth. It is the simple fact.

Instead of seeing the abusers as the ones for which we are fighting, we have to identify with the abused. If we pull out, atrocities like this one will worsen in severity and frequency, neither of which is an acceptable outcome of a pullout by US authorities. For this brave young man, we must continue the fight. We cannot allow the terrorists to dictate our action. In the face of tragedy such as this, we cannot simply turn our tails and flee. To the contrary, in the face of such tragedy is exactly when we must strengthen our resolve. This should be a rallying point for Christians, whose brothers are being persecuted, and Americans, who should be highly concerned with the proliferation of one of the greatest American rights--freedom to worship as we please.

In Sean Hannity's TV interview with Bush last night, he asked the President if this was a war between good and evil. Mr. Bush said he thought it was. And it is. We cannot allow evil to triumph over good. It is just that simple.

Politicizing disease

*Update: The folks over at Gateway Pundit explain that it's not just "America's Anchorman: that harmless, loveable little fuzzball el Rushmo" who's railing against the M.J. Fox ads.

When we politicize diseases, this is the kind of debate we get...

As I was skimming the blogs this morning--as I do nearly every morning--I came across several entries regarding comments by Rush Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox entering the political arena by doing ads for senatorial candidates in Maryland (Cardin) and Missouri (McCaskill ). The debate seems to be over what Limbaugh said--that Fox either acted well or had stopped taking his medication to make his condition look as bad as possible for the purpose of misleading people who suffer. The bigger debate--and the one which I think Limbaugh was trying to frame--is that the Democrats think that they can use 'victims' in political attack ads without any reprecutions. From Limbaugh:

Then you bring forth a person who's suffering the disease, and you illustrate the disease and the ravages and the suffering on TV to create sympathy and infallibility, because you're not supposed to be able to attack somebody or criticize somebody in any way or in any regard if they suffer from the disease. It's considered cold-hearted and cruel. What's happening here is that Michael Fox has entered the political arena with his attack, which includes false information about Senator Talent and Michael Steele in Maryland. That's fair ame, and I am not going to follow the script that says we're not allowed to comment on the things said by participants, "victims," what have you, that the Democrats put forth as infallible in the middle of a political campaign.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Limbaugh said. Sister Toldjah covered the debate here and here. She says that Limbaugh's comments about Fox possibly acting 'disgraceful.' I disagree. The comments may have been distasteful, though I think even that's a stretch, but he is not somehow insulated to say whatever he wants about this issue with out some sort of backlash from those who oppose his political views

Rush clearly outlines what the Dems are trying to do in this. They are painting conservatives as "for Parkinsons" for opposing stem cell research. We've seen it before. Conservatives are "for incest and babies born from rape victims" if we oppose abortion. We are for...well I'll let Rush explain:

That's what the Democrats are doing, politicizing diseases and illnesses, damaging what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort at addressing and curing illnesses, and the same time they claim if you don't embrace their political and cultural agenda, then you're for Parkinson's disease, and you are for spinal paralysis. It's no different than the way they do it in the environmental movement. They talk about dirty water and dirty air, and if you oppose the environmentalists, why, you must be for dirty water and dirty air! You don't want clean water and clean air, and this is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn't criticize them.

The bottom line is that celebrities, victims, disease patients etc. are not any different than anybody else once they enter the political arena--the are open to insult, debate and rebuttle just as anywone else. And so it should be. Rush's main point is simply that we cannot sit by and let somebody spew disinformation simply because they are victims etc. More:

The truth is, all stem cell research is legal today in Missouri. Jim Talent does not seek to criminalize it, as Michael J. Fox asserts in his television commercial. Stem cell research is legal today in Missouri, it is happening at universities across the state. The truth is Amendment 2 would put human cloning in the Constitution. Now, the Michael J. Fox ad says that Talent wants to criminalize research, and this is false. It is already legal and it's already happening. Senator Talent and other opponents of Amendment 2 are not touching stem cell research in any way. What they want to do is stop human cloning from becoming a new right in the Missouri Constitution, and so they have named the pro-cloning bill the stem cell research and cures initiative so that people will go to the polls on November the 7th and think they're voting for stem cell research, which is already legal.

Michael J. Fox is participating in this disinformation campaign. Folks, I don't care what anybody says, it is unseemly, it is exploitative, and it is downright mean to mislead people who suffer from incurable diseases at the moment or horrible diseases, that there is a cure around the corner if only, if only Republicans could be defeated. There has been a tradition in this country of bipartisan efforts to cure all of these diseases or to come up with vaccinations for them, but never mind that, we're in the process here now of damaging what has traditionally been this bipartisan effort in addressing and curing illnesses by politicizing them. We're now politicizing diseases and illnesses.

[...]

So the Michael J. Fox Foundation currently, with its namesake, doing commercials misleading Missourians and Marylanders on the effects of stem cell research and the idea that Republicans want to criminalize this research and stop and prevent a cure for Parkinson's disease has actually funded a follow-up study to this virus research that involves gene therapy. Do I need to say more? They're still not sure about this but it shows promising results, far more promising than anything that has come from embryonic stem cell research to date, ladies and gentlemen. Now, this has to be known by Mr. Fox since his foundation donated $1.9 million for a follow-up study on this and yet he still is producing these commercials.

But Rush doesn't blame Fox. He blames the candidates:

Now, who do you want to blame, you want to blame Fox or do you want to blame the candidates for running them? Robert George, the professor at Princeton, blames the candidates. They're the ones who are disgraced by exploiting and using the sufferers of this disease to politicize the illness and for political gain.

And so, love him or hate him, Rush is right yet again. Kudos to Rush for seeing--yet again--through the liberal trap.

Homosexuals on the moon?

In theory anyway. From WorldNetDaily:

Fly me to the moon? No thanks, said a 13-year-old girl who refused, because of her faith, to write an assignment for her health and physical education class about being the only heterosexual in a lunar colony with 10 homosexuals.

The class at Windaroo Valley State High School, made up of 13- and 14-year-old girls, was given the scenario and told to answer 10 questions, including how it felt to be a "minority" and what they would do to cope with their situation. They were also
told to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.

While many of the students were uncomfortable with the assignment or said they didn't understand the questions, one girl instantly refused because of her religious faith. "It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher.

For this, she was given her first-ever failing grade in a health and physical education class. According to the Brisbane Sunday Mail of Australia, students were told that details of the assignment were to remain in class and they weren't to discuss it with their parents.

And there's the real problem. The worst part isn't the assignment, or even the 'F' the girl recieved for not doing the assignment, but rather that the kids were told not to discuss school with the parents. If the assignment is one that shouldn't be discussed with parents--aside, of course, from those cheeseball assignments were the kids make their mommies and daddies something nice for Mother's Day or Father's Day, though I don't think that kind of stuff is allowed any more--then it shouldn't even be brought up in class. Not that such tactics can prevent assertive parents from getting to the root of the problem:

"I went to the school thinking there might have been a personality clash with the teacher," said the teen's mother, who only learned of the assignment after her report card was sent home. "When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' ... I was shocked by the content," she said of the assignment.

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions. She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age."

No 13 year-old student should be challenged like this. Kids don't even get a childhood now. Though I sound like an old man when I say this, I honestly do not remember it being this way just 8 years ago when I was 13. Kids barely know what they belief at this point, challenging them on why they believe it is just uncalled for.

"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Queensland, Australia Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said.

The government "has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said. "It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs. It's not the job of our schools to politicize our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and math."

The revelation of "faith-based grading" came to light in the same week Federal
Education Minister Julie Bishop announced plans to take control of the schools from Australia's separate states.

The state education systems, she told a history teachers' conference, had been hijacked by leftist "ideologues" promoting ideas "straight from Chairman Mao."

Regarding Windaroo Valley's homosexuals-on-the-moon assignment, Bishop
said it was one more reason to be concerned about Australia's schools.

"This is another example of a politically-correct agenda masquerading as curriculum," she said. "Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

"Knowing the content," said the girl's mother, was precisely what Windaroo Valley High did not seem to want, noting that school officials seemed more concerned about how parents learned of the assignment than her daughter's religious beliefs.

"That's what concerns me most ... the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," she said.

The school website had this to say about the school:

That should be good news for one 13-year-old girl at Windaroo Valley High
where the school's website makes this promise:

"Ultimately we offer choice, opportunity and potential. There is something for everyone with new additions being made every year to enhance our progressive curriculum. We want students to be happy."

This stuff has to stop. Period.

Disgusted

*Updated, see below...
*Updated again--scroll down

My lack of blogging on the typical Friday afternoon and continuing throught the weekend has caused me to be "behind" in the news. Yesarday I covered the horrid slaying of the young Amish students. Today I am compelled to throw my two cents in on the Foley situation.

First on Foley from The Washington Post:

"Today I have delivered a letter to the Speaker of the House informing him of my decision to resign from the U.S. House of Representatives, effective today," Foley said in a statement.

"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."

Foley was the author of the key sexual predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July.

Foley, who represents a district in southern Florida, also was a member if the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax and trade policy.

My initial reaction was something like this, "surely this can't be as bad as it's being made to be...surely this is purely politics. Those rat democrats wills top at nothing." I was angry at "them."

As more information has been made available, though, my anger is slowly but surely being redirected. Most infuriating thus far has been Speaker of the House Hastert's reaction and behavior. Now my anger is at "us."From another article at The Washington Post:

Hastert, as the House's top officer and the man in line after the vice president to succeed the president, has been the main target of questions and barbs from both parties. He reiterated yesterday that he recalled hearing nothing about Foley's e-mails until last Friday, but he does not dispute the assertion of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) that he informed the speaker last spring.

"If Reynolds told me, it was in a line of things, and we were in the middle of another crisis this spring, so I just don't remember that," Hastert told reporters. He defended the decision by several top staffers to handle the Foley matter without telling him. "I see no reason to bump it up to me at that time," he said.

No reason to bump it up? No reason? What kind of response is that? He might as well have said, "well, I wasn't that concerned that one of the Congress members was sending sexually explicit messages that are definately unethical and possibly illegal. I had other things to do so I let one of my hired helpers do my job for me."

Aside from that, Hastert claims he "recalls hearing nothing" of the emails until Friday in the above report. But in a report by The Washington Times, he says that he did see them and that he acted:

Hastert and other leaders have laid out a complicated series of events. They say they first became aware of overly friendly e-mails from Foley to one underage male page last spring, but had no idea that the congressman had sent other sexually explicit messages to additional pages.

Even before then, Foley had been confronted in the fall of 2005 about his communications with the one page, and told to break off contact with him and all other pages. According to a weekend statement issued by Hastert's office, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who heads the page board, and the House clerk, met with the Florida lawmaker and told him to "immediately cease any communication" with the page.

Boehner, the second-ranking GOP leader, became the latest member of the party's high command to outline his involvement when he answered questions in his radio interview.

"I believe I talked to the speaker, and he told me it had been taken care of," he said, when asked about the e-mails that were not sexually explicit. He said that had occurred last spring.

"In my position, it's in his corner. It's his responsibility. The clerk of the House, who runs the page program, the page board, all report to the speaker, and I believed it had been dealt with. Again, I didn't know the context of what even the original message (said)," he added.

In a seperate editorial, the Times is calling for Hastert to step down. They clearly articulate my precise feelings:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once.

Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away.

He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

But the President stands behind Hastert:

"I know that he wants all the facts to come out and he wants to ensure that these children up there on Capitol Hill are protected," the president said. "I'm confident he will provide whatever leadership he can to law enforcement in this investigation."

How can Hastert provide the leadership needed when he did not even believe it was a big enough deal for him to personally address when the revolations were made to him in the spring? Simply, he cannot. Sorry, Mr. President, but you are wrong on this one.

I'm not advocating Hastert's resignation from congress, simply just to step down from his chairmanship. But Hastert is not enough...

What about the Page Board? Rumors suggest that Republican leaders on the page board--including WV's own Shelly Moore-Capito (who will be in my home county this weekend)--knew about the incident and did not share the information with Democrats. Unacceptable. I don't like most democrats any more than the next good Republican does, but good God, how is anything going to be done without communication--even with your political enemies.

Although nobody cares--The Vent Pipe is stepping up to the plate alongside The Wasington Times: Mr. Speaker, I urge you to resign. Step aside and allow someone else step up. I also urge that the United States House of Representatives investigate each and every member of the page board. If any member--even my own--had any knowledge of the situation and failed to act or to communicate their knowledge with other members (including Democrats) then they too should step down from their position on the Board. That's to bottom line.

Is this somehow indicitive of a decline in the moral fiber of today? Are the Republicans imploding? Have they single-handedly lost the election for themselves? I think the answers to the questions are YES, YES and YES. But we shall have to see.

*Update:

Shep Smith on the Fox News Channel just featured a story by Major Garret on the Foley mess. The story ran in the first 15 minutes of the show.

Garret reported that a text dialogue between the boy and Foley about masturbation was just released. The dialogue occurred during debate on a bill concerning FUNDING INCREASES FOR THE IRAQ WAR.

Clarification: Shep just offered a clarification. Foley, apparently left the Chamber to have "cybersex" with a page. The conversation ended with Foley saying, "well, I better go vote, I miss you." The boy replied "I miss you too." Then Foley said, "can I have a kiss goodnight?"

Good GOD. This is a Representative. Sent to Washington, DC to do the people's business--but is he? NO. He's leaving meetings to go have cybersex with some kid.

That's right--while the House was debating sending money to help protect our men and women who are fighting and DYING in Iraq, Foley thought it would be better to talk about his disgusting sexual habbits. This man is scum. How many other bills concerning the life and death nature of the war on terror was he sitting idly by during? How many other times was he talking dirty to young men rather than debating the most important elements of the responsiblities of our Congress? The more I think about it, the more angry I get.

UPDATE AGAIN...

Outside the Beltway covers the developments about the messaging during debate on the Emergancy War Fund Bill (or whatever the proper title was...)

The Politics of Abortion

A great blurb from the Evangelical Outpost on abortion and the politics thereof:

Princeton professor Robert George -- one of the smartest men in America -- explains he cannot support the Democratic Party:

I find no cause for joy in this. I wish that it were possible for pro-life citizens legitimately to support Democratic candidates. I wish that the party of my parents and grandparents had not placed itself on the wrong side of the most profound human rights issue of our contemporary domestic politics. I wish that the killing of embryonic and fetal human beings by abortion and in biomedical research were resolutely opposed by both parties so that we could cast our votes based on our assessments of the candidates’ and parties’ competing positions on taxation, immigration, education, welfare, health-care reform, national security, and foreign policy. It is hardly satisfactory that pro-life citizens—representing a variety of views on the range of issues in economic, social, and foreign policy—find themselves bound to the Republicans because the only viable alternative is a party that has abandoned its commitment to the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family by embracing abortion and embryo-destructive research.

Every Christian has to follow their own concience. But for the reasons George lists, I cannot fathom how a Christian can justify supporting the Democratic Party. They have placed themselves on the wrong side of morality and history and until they repent and find their way back, they don't deserve the support of pro-life citizens.

Sometimes I feel guilty for it, but I have to say that I agree whole heartedly with the last paragraph there. I have always said, "How can you be a Christian and vote democrat?" I am by no means suggesting that the Repubicans are somehow 'more Holy' or 'righteous' or even "more christian." Yet it stands to reason that if one is a Christian at all concerned with doing right, then voting for a party that stands so solidly in support of such a horrid practice as abortion has a knock against it before we are even able to examine other issues.

Robert George also makes a good point...the Dems are seemingly putting themselves in a bit of a pickle by (almost) always supporting unregulated abortion. By doing so, they're losing out on a voting bloc that is pro-life, but stands for many if not all of the other staples of the Dems platform. I've said before that I could never vote pro-choice--republican or democrat--on a state or national level. Maybe that's just me?