LifeSiteNews.com reports, "The British Labour government has announced that parents will have no right to remove their children over the age of 15 from explicit "sex education" programs in schools". The new system will incorporate sex-education throughout the education system - including private schools, for children aged five and up. Until this law change parents were able to withdraw school-children of any age from sex-ed classes. Of course Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Ed Balls knows better than mum and dad and was worried that some children were reaching the age of consent without receiving State sex-education!

Balls claims that the public is onside: "Following discussions with parents, young people and faith groups, the Government will bring forward legislation to lower the age to 15. A majority of parents polled on this subject supported a lower age." Good to get that clarity from the Secretary. Discussions were had with some parents, some young people and select "faith groups" - of course we're not going to tell you which ones or how many otherwise we would seem silly. However LifeSiteNews reports on the contrary, that "nearly 80 per cent of respondents believed parents should retain the right to withdraw their children at any age".

The current age at which parents lose the right to pull their children out of sex-ed is 19, which I agree is too high, however while this age could be lowered, 15 is obviously too young. Of course the Family Planning Association in the UK is one of the key movers behind this law change and its not as if they're going to rest on their laurels at this victory, they won't rest on this issue until parents have no right at all to withdraw their own children from certain mandatory sex-ed classes - whether they're at pre-school or primary-school.

This latest law change is just a bit of fooling round with the finer details of the system. The question that needs to be asked is, why is the State running classes (compulsory or not) for children on how to have "safe sex" among other subjects essential for all young people - to give them the information they need to make the right choices about their future... It's time to stop kidding ourselves in the West. The state-education system has evolved into a state social-engineering system which moulds subjects more willing to fit into a totalitarian state. As Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner observed, "totalitarianism means exactly that: total conformity of everybody with the politically correct consensus, with no exceptions tolerated".

hat-tip: Semper Vita

Labels: sex education, state education, UK

Famous L.A. restaurant owner Josh Woodward allegedly committed an abortion against a woman and their 13wk unborn child on 19 October. Girlfriend at the time, Suzy Buckley (pictured) claims that she is not the woman in question - that the mother of the child is Josh's ex-girlfriend. Suzy has now split up with her abortionist boyfriend. The mother reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that,

Woodward kept putting his hand in a plastic bag and then touching her sexually. The woman says she lost the baby a few hours later... and remembers seeing a white powdery substance on her underwear. - TMZ.com

What Woodward was doing was committing the second half of what is known as a Chemical, or RU486 abortion on this woman by applying the abortion drug misopristol externally and without the woman's knowledge of what was going on. TMZ.com referred to the killing of the foetus as a "brutal murder" which is exactly what it was.

The picture to the right is of a bottle of 120 misoprostol tablets, marketed for the prevention of stomach ulcers in dogs which can be purchased from a veterinary store in the States. However according to the dosage table on this webpage, 4 tablets should be
sufficient to force the miscarriage (premature birth) of a pre-born human baby between 13 - 22wks. It will quite possibly be alive upon birth but will die shortly afterwards as its lungs among other things are not yet developed for life outside the womb. Jill Stanek explains what Misoprostol is and how it works,

Misoprostol (trade name Cytotec) is the drug used to dilate the cervix in induced labor abortions. It is also the 2nd half of the RU-486 abortion cocktail. RU-486 kills the preborn baby, and Misoprostol dilates the cervix to expel the dead baby. Misoprostol is easily available via the online black market.

If abortion is really just clearing the uterus or terminating a pregnancy and that's societally acceptable, then the biologically pre-born human must be the property of the mother to do with what she will. Of course this begs the difficult question that abortion supporters must answer: at what point does the pre-born human take on his/her own rights and cease to be owned by the mother? Interesting to note of course that in New Zealand abortion law for instance specifies that "full regard must be given to the rights of the unborn child". Anyway, under the abortion law in L.A. the only two things they could get Josh on would be performing an abortion without a license or performing an abortion without the woman's consent.

"So they take your life because you're a burden in their hands" - Burden in Your Hands by Underoath

Labels: abortion

from the London Times

Outside the Bristol Zoo, in England, there is a parking lot for 150 cars and 8 coaches, or buses.

It was manned by a very pleasant attendant with a ticket machine charging cars £1 and coaches £5.

This parking attendant worked there solid for all of 25 years. Then, one day, he just didn't turn up for work.

"Oh well", said Bristol Zoo Management - "we'd better phone up the City Council and get them to send a new parking attendant .

"Err ... no", said the Council, "that parking lot is your responsibility."

"Err ... no", said Bristol Zoo Management, "the attendant was employed by the City Council, wasn't he?"

"Err ... no!" insisted the Council.

Sitting in his villa somewhere on the coast of Spain, is a man who had been taking the parking lot fees, estimated at £400 per day at Bristol Zoo for the last 25 years. Assuming 7 days a week, this amounts to just over £3.6 million!

And no one even knows his name.

Labels: joke

The petition asking "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" was put forward by Focus on the Family employee Sheryl Savill, however it was the initiative of ex-United Future list MP, Larry Baldock. The petition was signed by over 390,000 Kiwis and was supported by people from a wide range of backgrounds and political parties. However as the 08 election got closer, questions began being asked about what the petition was all about. This is covered in more detail in my Christian Voting guide for the 08 election but in summary involved a new political party forming on the back of the petition, followed by an unprecedented breach of privacy of the personal details of the signatories to the petition. Then on 5 September the Kiwi Party announced their second petition, this time calling for referendums on a law change to be binding. This is not only a knee-jerk reaction to the National Government's ignoring the 87.6% No vote response to the smacking referendum, but also an attempt at creating a platform from which to relaunch the Kiwi Party into the '11 election - and this time it's even more blatant. The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy website and the Kiwi Party's own website contain identical articles, not to mention a striking similarity in the name - and this despite Larry's denial at a recent Christchurch meeting that the campaign was being run by the Kiwi Party.

However today the Legislation Advisory Committee which is headed up by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has come out saying the petition must not be allowed to go ahead as it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums - NZ Herald. Petition initiator and Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock fairly responded, "they're trying to shut down democracy". Simeon Brown of NZ Debate observed that "if they have a right to veto it, we should have the right to veto parliament". The fact of the matter is, there are no legitimate grounds on which to prevent the petition from going ahead. The CIR act was established to ensure that citizens could have their say if they thought they were being ignored - on any issue apart from one which had been the subject of a prior referendum question. The Committee raises many very good points as to why the aim of the petition is at conflict with the way New Zealand's electoral system works. Palmer states that, "It is doubtful that Parliament contemplated that such a referendum could be held under the authority of the Act". However if this were the case, why does the law specify various prohibitions for what petition questions may relate to (Section 4), but neglect to rule out questions relating to the operation of the CIR process itself? He comments further on in the Herald's article,

"The second question that arises is what does binding mean? Does it mean that the content of the referendum is capable of displacing or amending an Act of Parliament directly? As a matter of legal drafting, that cannot be the case. It seems quite impossible for a citizen's initiated referendum to contain professionally drafted amendments that would be legally effective.

Palmer here identifies one of the key problems with the Kiwi Party initiative to amend the CIR Act. A simplified petition question can firstly, not adequately address the plethora of issues surrounding a proposed law change, and secondly, acting on the results of a binding referendum would be extremely difficult as referendum questions never specify the exact changes that should be made to a particular law. As such, referendums are at their best, valuable tools for gaining an accurate gauge on public opinion on a specific issue. According to the guidelines around obtaining a referendum, the Clerk of Parliament has until about 14 Jan to come to a decision on whether or not the petition will ultimately be able to go ahead. The public have had their opportunity to make comment (in the 28 days from 16 Sept to 14 Oct), and we are now in the three month period during which the Clerk may deliberate on the final wording of the question with input from the key parties concerned.

Labels: democracy, petition, referendum, The Kiwi Party

ACT MP Law & Order spokesman David Garrett writes on his blog about why the death penalty would not work in New Zealand in response to an article by Cactus Kate calling for the death penalty to be introduced with recent posterboys including psychopath Clayton Weatherston who killed his girlfriend by stabbing her 216 times.

As some readers will know, I have in the past (prior to my involvement with ACT) advocated a return of the death penalty for our worst murderers – the Bells, the Rufus Marsh’s  and the Burtons.

After ten years reflection, I have now changed my view somewhat. While most people wouldn’t have much of a problem if Bell or Burton were executed, as a matter of public policy it becomes very problematic.

Having lived in a country where the death penalty remains on the books as a discretionary sentence for murder, I can say with some certainty that one of the results of having a capital sentence even as an option  is what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” by juries unwilling to convict because they know or believe the person concerned will be executed, and they cannot cope with that on their collective conscience.

The question of whether or not the death penalty would be enforceable or workable should come after the discussion on its justification. To rule out bringing in the death penalty because some juries were emotionally compromised is a pragmatic response to the issue. Garrett states that life without parole (LWOP) is probably a worse penalty than being sentenced to death, and he's probably right - but a worse penalty for who? With New Zealand's tax-payer funded prison system, incarceration is merely a no-frills holiday with a varying range of lifestyle options including low-paid work, education and drug-use. That's not to trivialise some of the abuse that goes on within prisons however the real question here is, why should society suffer twice at the hands of the offender. First when the offender commits a crime deemed worthy of LWOP, and then second when they pay for his existence until death.

Labels: Act, death, murder, prison

Last Wednesday a friend and I stopped in at the National Party tent at the A&P Show to give them a rark up over their actions around the anti-smacking law. We spoke with newcomer, list MP Michael Woodhouse and Chris Auchinvole, MP for the West Coast. Woodhouse has a good grasp on ACC but we spoke primarily with Auchinvole about the smacking issue. Auchinvole stated that the reason National didn't support ACT MP John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow correctional smacking with the hand only, was that the bill would bring about an incredible invasion of family privacy. Boscawen's bill is essentially the same as the bill put forward by National MP Chester Borrows in Feb 2007 which did not pass, and Auchinvole claimed that Borrows had said that it was "verbatim". He railed against the bill as he stated that it specified down to the most intricate level, the specifics of the legitimate use of reasonable force by parents upon their children. However if he had taken the trouble to read and understand the bill he would know that while it is slightly more complicated, it is far from unenforceable or a massive breach of family privacy. Instead it specifies a few things that parents must and must not do, while at the same time altering the law to permit the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.

However on 20 Feb 07 Chester Borrows stated that “The full National Party caucus supports my amendments". So why would Auchinvole give his support for the amendment in 2007 when in the opposition but now oppose the amendment in 2009 when he is comfortably in government. Auchinvole and the rest of the National party were happy to support this substantial amendment to Sue Bradford's anti-family bill when they were in opposition, as this was an opportunity for them to be seen to be for the people. But in 2009, a year after they formed the new government, here's a government MP claiming that this same bill is a waste of time. The worst thing about it was that Auchinvole absolutely refused to acknowledge that the current law meant that a correctional smack was a criminal offence. Instead he repeated his statement that "parents can give their children a smack", but when I pressed him as to the legality of this action, he neither confirmed nor denied, but simply refused to answer. I asked him several times but each time he avoided the question. Eventually I told him, "I think it's a criminal offence that you ask an MP a question and he refuses to answer you". Obviously this was a play on the law we were discussing which makes a correctional smack a criminal offence. Chris asked me if I was calling him a criminal, however this was simply an attempt at side-stepping my real accusation. Eventually he played the get out of jail free card, telling me that I was being rude and offensive and that our conversation was over. I don't know how these people get their jobs, but when a 66yr-old representative in Government can't give you a straight answer to a fair question, there's something seriously wrong.

Labels: government, national, smack

This is huge news. The Stupak/Pitts amendment which ensures that federal funding for abortion will be kept out of the HealthCare Bill has passed, 240-194 in the House of Congress in the United States.

Following the surprise move by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to allow a vote on the amendment, LifeNews.com reported comments on the amendment made by Douglas Johnson, the director of the National Right to Life Committee,

"This will be one of the most important roll call votes that U.S. House members ever casts on a pro-life issue," he said. "Any lawmaker who votes against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is, in effect, voting in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."

On Saturday evening, 64 Democrats voted with 176 Republicans to support the amendment to the bill. CEO of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards is understandably quite upset at this outcome, claiming that the new bill will,

"restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money."

However this is not the case as Jill Stanek explained on Saturday before the vote,

This amendment keeps the status quo. It is identical to the current federal employees' insurance plan, which does not cover abortion. Currently, if a pregnant mother who works for the federal government wants to abort, she can do so with her own money.

Under the Stupak/Pitts amendment any low-income pregnant mother who would get her insurance through the government would have to do to the same. Or if she has a private insurance plan that is subsidized by the federal government, that private company could not pay for her abortion.

This is a massive victory for pro-lifers in the States. The Healthcare Reform Bill may have passed through Congress, however it has done so without cover being provided for abortions. David Brody at the Christian Broadcasting Network writes,

"if you just heard a loud thud, well that was pro-choice liberals in the House plopping down in their seats dumbfounded and frustrated as can be. Not only does their healthcare reform bill not contain a "robust" public option but it now contains this new pro-life language. This is a horrible turn of events for House liberals. You can be sure they'll be pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to strip this language out in conference (if the bill makes it that far) but for now this vote tonight is something pro-choice liberals will lose some sleep over."

New Zealand already has government-funded abortions for all permanent residents and citizens. To our shame, we are absolutely complacent about this, not even blinking when being told that our tax-money funds this "core health service", abortion. These abortions are on demand and a large number of them are very likely being carried out in breach of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act of 1977 which states that abortion is illegal except in a very few circumstances. Pro-lifers in the US have a real fight on their hands to keep their country from slipping down the path of tax-payer funded child-killing as we have in New Zealand.

Labels: abortion, legislation, USA

Haven't had much humour on the blog lately, but here's some medical humour inspired by Scrubone.

Jerry is recovering from day surgery when a nurse asks him how he is feeling.
“I’m ok but I didn’t like the four-letter-word the doctor used in surgery,” he answered.
“What did he say,” asked the nurse.
“oops!”

And, indicators that it might be time for you to look for a new doctor...
- He keeps accidentally referring to himself as "the defendant."
- He introduces you to his anesthesiologist, "Doctor Jim Beam."

A man phones a mental hospital and asks the receptionist if there is anybody in Room 27.
She goes and checks, and comes back to the phone, telling him that the room is empty.
"Good," says the man. "That means I must have really escaped."

An older gentleman was on the operating table awaiting surgery and he insisted that his son, a renowned surgeon, perform the operation. As he was about to get the anesthesia, he asked to speak to his son.
'Yes Dad, what is it? '
'Don't be nervous, son; do your best and just remember, if it doesn't go well, if something happens to me, your mother is going to come and live with you and your wife.'

Labels: ;), joke

Today I took part in my first anti-abortion protest march. Right to Life hosted a march in opposition to the Family Planning Association's (FPA) application to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence to commit abortions on foetuses up to 9 weeks at their Hamilton centre. The protest went well as we walked from Cathedral Square to the Family Planning Centre. The FPA has stated that they wish to convert their 30 branches throughout New Zealand into abortion clinics, and so their recent application signals the catalyst for a slew of brand new abortion clinics up and down our country.

What's wrong with the FPA getting the license? Women and girls of any age, with or without their parent's knowledge or consent would be able to go into an FPA abortion clinic and receive counselling on their crisis pregnancy. Since the FPA is pro-abortion and has a vested interest in women choosing abortion as they will gain financially, there will be a strong emphasis on the benefits of going ahead with an abortion. A certifying consultant will likely be present at the clinic, and able to sign off the form. Two certifying consultants are requried to approve abortions, and so a second consultant may be called by phone and asked "to approve an abortion for Jane". Of course this won't be an issue. In 2007 one certifying consultant approved 1,000 abortions and declined none. The task of certifying consultants to determine if a woman's situation justifies her having an abortion is nothing more than a farce, with 98.7% of abortions being granted on the mental health grounds of the mother in 2007. This is one thing that pro-abortion and pro-life advocates are quick to agree upon. Once the certifying consultants are out of the way, the woman can be given the first dose of the two-part deadly, and expensive drug. The drugs required for an RU486 abortion cost approximately $600. The first dose will starve the baby of essential nutrients while the second dose initiates contractions, resulting in the birth of the baby - usually dead, but occasionally alive, dying minutes afterwards. The Most Tranquil blog has a good post with the low down on RU486. It would also mean that towns currently without an abortion clinic - but that have a local Family Planning branch will have much easier access to abortions.

More photos from the march are at the Stop Family Planning website.

Labels: abortion, Family Planning Association, pro-life, protest

Research just published (4 Nov 09) by Otago University appears to have left the pro-abortion advocates in New Zealand shaken. President of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ), Margaret Sparrow attempts to discredit the findings by questioning the integrity of the report itself, of its researchers and of the media's reporting on it. Professor David Fergusson, of the department of Psychological Medicine, and his team studied data from women who had been interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been. They found that, "Women reporting adverse reactions were up to 80 per cent more likely than women not exposed to abortion to have mental health problems" - NZ Herald.

“Pro-abortion lobbyists in New Zealand like to throw the word ‘choice’ around, but how can we honestly claim that women choosing abortion are making a free and informed decision when they haven’t been properly advised about the risks of having an abortion, and the alternatives available to them” said Brendan Malone of Family Life International in their press release.

So having an abortion will increase your risk of suffering from a mental health disorder will increase by up to 80% if you agree for your baby to be killed by an abortionist. It would seem self-evident that any mother who agrees to having their own flesh and blood, their own little child killed is either careless, sadistic, or has not been told that this is in fact what is taking place. If the pre-born child is refered to as "the pregnancy", or "the products of conception" by her doctor and councillers then the mother is unlikely to be fully aware of the state of the child within her. If the mother was instead told that her "problem" was a small human-being, a life distinct from hers yet dependent upon her for its very life (from conception until about the age of five), perhaps she would then be able to see the situation for what it was. Another factor worthy of consideration when thinking about getting an abortion, is the effect that it may have on the mother's own health. Surprise surprise, workers within the government-funded abortion industry in New Zealand value their jobs and subsequently spend precious little time providing women with information on the very real plethora of risks - both physical and psychological, associated with having an abortion. Increased risk of contracting breast cancer, damage to mental health, future premature births or miscarriages, or nightmares about the awful fate of their tiny, helpless, unborn child.

Labels: abortion, ALRANZ

On Thursday 15 I looked at my Feedjit and found that someone (presumably a young woman) in Christchurch had searched for "I am 14 weeks pregnant, is this too late to have an abortion?" and she had found the post on my blog entitled What is Abortion. So I wrote about this on my Facebook wall,


Facebook allows you to have a picture with your link, and so I chose the picture of the 24wk foetus who had been killed by abortion. On Friday the post had dissapeared and I could tell that Facebook had removed it because they thought it was offensive. However there was no message from Facebook to tell me anything about this. So I reposted the link, this time using the picture of the 9wk foetus (arguably less offensive).

On Saturday when I woke up I discovered that Facebook had indefinitely disabled my account, and I was unable to login. I read the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and found that it was most likely that Facebook considered I had broken section 3.7, which states,

You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

The photos are definitely not examples of gratuitous violence. Further, these two photos did not depict violence, but rather the victims of violence. Also, under the law in the United States and in NZ (where abortion is essentially available on demand), a foetus is not seen as a life worthy of protecting, and is usually seen as a non-person. How then, can killing this entity be an act of violence if there is nothing wrong with it; if it is merely a medical procedure? Do we call a photo of a heart transplant "violent"? I don't think so.

I emailed them on Saturday (17 Oct) asking them to restore my account ,

...I hadn't read the statement, so can honestly say this was not an intentional breach of the guidelines. As it is your website which you allow people to use for free, I absolutely respect your right to make any regulations you wish. Could you please re-enable my account? I have now read the statement of rights and will adhere to it in the future.

To their credit, Facebook responded early yesterday morning (21 Oct),

Your account has been suspended because you posted content through Facebook's Links application that has been removed for violating Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Links that include drug use, nudity, or other graphic or sexually suggestive content are not allowed, nor are links that depict violence or that attack an individual or group of people. Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, we are unable to provide further information about the removed link.

However, after reviewing your situation, we have reactivated your account...

My mate wrote on his wall to let people known I'd been removed from Facebook - here's some of the feedback...

Why would you post a picture of an aborted baby? It's abusively offensive
>> Its abusively offensive to abort a baby.
>>Pro-lifers are abusively offensive.

That is ridiculous. If I posted a kidney or a tonsil I bet I wouldn't be banned. If it is just tissue that can be electively removed then what is the problem? How can tissue be offensive?

Are you serious!?!?!? Wow, and they allow facebook groups that promote genocide (including of Jews) instead??

While I believe Facebook technically misapplied their own standards in deciding to disable my account, and were wrong in that they removed two of my posts and disabled my account without even a warning, overall I've been happy with their response and the resolution of this incident.

Labels: abortion, free speech

Goonix at The Visible Hand in Economics blog delivers a fast knock-out argument in defence of scalping - buying tickets to an event and then on-selling them at a profit. Great read.

Events in high demand that have limited capacity sell out. See for example the Wellington Sevens or Toast Martinborough, which sold out in three minutes and thirteen minutes respectively. These events sell out as demand far outstrips supply at the price that the seller sets. In other words, many of those purchasing the tickets would be willing to pay much more than they actually do pay in order to attend said event.
High demand events such as these are the capitalist world’s version of queuing for basic food items in a communist shit-hole. When buyers are unable to adequately express their willingness to pay, due to blunt ‘one-for-all’ pricing and an inability of the seller to price discriminate, shortage ensues.
Enter the scalper. Scalpers are typically demonised by the media in New Zealand. However, scalpers simply allow buyers to reveal their true willingness to pay. When a scalper auctions off a ticket on Trademe, buyers are able to pay exactly what they value their attendance at said event at. What ensues is the efficient allocation of resources – scarce resources are allocated to those that value them highest – an admirable economic goal. Contrast this with the lottery that is the current ‘log-in and hope’ method of ticket allocation. Rather than be vilified, scalpers should be commended for their actions that facilitate the clearing of the market!

hat-tip: Kiwiblog

Labels: economics

There's a lot of good music by Christian bands out there that you haven't heard about yet, and starting with this post, I'll be occasionally sharing links to free songs that you can download (legally), to introduce you to some of these sweet tunes. Have just downloaded two new sampler albums from Tooth & Nail - cheers to the Free Christian Music blog for the heads up. If you're outside the US, you'll need a zip code. Here's one from Ventura County in California: 91377.

Grab the free 12-song Tooth & Nail Sampler for Summer 09 here. Haven't heard any of the songs yet, but we're looking at 12 pretty mainstream tunes. Emery's song Cutthroat Collapse from their latest album and Ktuless's The Resucue will welcome additions to my library. Have heard a little of the other bands before...

And there's 25 tracks from Tooth & Nail's Fuel Sampler which supposedly ran til' 18 September but is still available for download if you're quick... Know many of the bands in this sampler. Underoath's Desperate Times, Desperate Measures would be the only song I know from the impressive lineup, so a bunch of new songs which is great.

There's a bunch of songs to get you started, later we'll look a bit more in-depth at some more individual song as well as an explanation of what "Christian music" is all about if I get round to it...

Labels: Christian music, mp3

Wrote a guest post for the MandM blog,

“Free hamburgers and sausage sizzle, $5 jugs of beer” read the advertisement in the student magazine CANTA, a week or so before the University of Canterbury Student Association’s (UCSA) AGM. The quorum for the AGM is 120 students as established in the constitution, and it was pitiful to read the president pleading in his weekly column for people to come along. Of course they’d already attempted to run the AGM the week before, but hadn’t made the quorum. So out with the bribes and cheap beer and let’s try this one again. And where else to host the AGM than outside the student pub, in the amphitheatre? From a compulsory membership of 18,000 students, the UCSA was struggling to make up this poorly representative quorum by offering cheap alcohol and free food, only it wasn’t free because the students paid for it in their levy – yep, even the ones who didn’t attend the meeting. Oh, but perhaps I’m coming down a bit strong – after all, the agenda for the meeting was seeking to raise the quality of life for students. Ahem. Seeking to raise the quality of life for the students on the Exec, by raising all their salaries, including bumping the president’s salary up over the $50k mark. With a budget close to $9m ($1.2m from student levy in 2008) and aprox $400k expenditure by the Exec on a yearly basis it makes you wonder where all the money is going.

Continue reading...

Labels: MandM

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month and Brendan Malone at the Semper Vita blog writes of elephants obscured by miles and miles of pink ribbon,

Despite all the pink ribbons, posters and public monuments bathed in pink strobe lights after dark, there are some very large elephants standing in the breast cancer corner that no one wants to acknowledge, let alone talk about. What am I referring to? The link between oral contraceptives and increased rates of breast cancer, the link between abortion and the increased rates of breast cancer, and the fact that delaying your first pregnancy increases your risk of breast cancer.

...There are a multitude of studies (28 at last count) which show a definite link between abortion and a subsequent increased risk of breast cancer. This increased risk appears to associated with the cellular changes which occur within the female breasts during pregnancy (in preparation for milk production), that are violently interrupted by an abortion, which leaves dormant cells, and high levels of pregnancy hormones for the body to deal with. The research shows that miscarriage carries an increased risk of breast cancer as well, but it is still nowhere near as high as it is with an abortion. (continue reading)

To their shame, the NZ Breast Cancer Foundation does not seek to raise awareness to this link meaning that women are not provided with all the information necessary to make an informed decision about whether to go ahead with an abortion or not.

Labels: abortion, breast cancer

As usual, ALRANZ (9 Oct) reacts to Right to Life's action on behalf of the legal rights of the silent unborn members of our society. As usual, it is the aging Dame Margaret Sparrow as the sole spokesperson of her small and dwindling group of pro-abortion extremists who attempts to smear Right to Life spokesperson Ken Orr's drawn-out involvement in the case, Right to Life vs. Crown over the matter of the personhood of unborn children, and the legality of the actions of the pro-abortion Abortion Supervisory Committee. As usual, Ms. Sparrow resorts to an awkward compilation of emotive and exaggerated platitudes which is presented in the format of a press release - which we all know are God's truth...

I do not completely disagree with Ms. Sparrows assertions. She states, "mifepristone is many times safer for women than taking Viagra is for men," making a valid point and drawing attention to what may be in some cases an example of alarmism and scare-tactics aimed at expectant mothers, on the part of some anti-abortion groups. It is indeed true that mifepristone has caused the death of some pregnant women, however when compared with other common drugs I understand that the numbers are not outstanding. However Ms. Sparrow also makes the unfounded claim that, "having an early medical abortion is about 10 times safer than giving birth." I presume that she is not talking about the safety of the unborn child here. I presume that she is not talking about the mother either. Having an abortion generally increases a woman's chance of contracting breast cancer by 150% due to excess estrogen present in the body due to the unnatural destruction of the unborn child, so committing an abortion is hardly safe for the woman. So who is she talking about? Who knows.

Ms. Sparrow states, “The Crown has spent well over a quarter of a million dollars defending New Zealand women..." If this isn't a wonderful example of twisting the truth, then I'm a hippie. In reality, the Crown has spent - and continues to spend inordinate quantities of tax-payer dollars to defend itself (the Abortion Supervisory Committe which reports to Parliament). The Crown has an unlimited slush-fund with which to defend its actions against the privately funded efforts of Right to Life to see justice done for the unborn, and for women to be given adequate information to make a truly informed decision in regards to their pregnancy.

Read Right to Life's deconstruction of Ms. Sparrow's claims here. Mr. Tips at the excellent NZ Conservative blog writes on this,

Once again, ALRANZ (the personal vehicle for the twisted justification of abortion in Margaret Sparrow's head) is spreading deceit to stem any criticism of its attempts to promote abortion. Ms. Sparrow is worried that Right to Life (RTL) is going to take legal action to prevent Family Planning attempts to get RU486 sold across the pharmacy counter or from your GP, without a certifying consultant certificate. More specifically, Ms. Sparrow has issued a press release to counter the "lies, intimidation and threats" of RTL on this issues. In this, Ms. Sparrow claims RU486 is not a killer and that medical abortion is 10x safer than giving birth... (continue reading)

I have previously written on ALRANZ's tactics here, ALRANZ Misleading Public. Mr. Tips mentions the FPA's attempts to get RU486 into pharmacies. This is stupid because women who use RU486 to kill their unborn child often experience complications. As far as the woman is concerned, it is unsafe for her to use this drug outside of the abortion-mill as she may urgently require attention from one of the workers to assist her with complications leading from its use. Anyway, you can already buy abortifacient contraceptives across the counter from pharmacies throughout New Zealand - and hey kids, try this at home. NZ Abortion law states that girls of any age are not required to have parental consent or notification before obtaining an abortion, whether it is chemical or surgical.

Labels: abortion, ALRANZ, Margaret Sparrow, Right to Life

In September I attended the Forum on the Family. Here two questions were asked of Phil Goff relating to abortion in New Zealand (video here). I asked, "Currently young girls can have their pre-born baby aborted without their parents' knowledge or consent - what will your party do about this?", however Phil ignored the specificity of the question and spoke about abortion in general. A couple of interesting statements from his response,

"I have a deep unease about the taking of life - even at a foetal stage"

And yet throughout 9 years of a Labour Government, nothing was done to reduce the increasing number of abortions in New Zealand. If you're "uneasy" about the taking of foetal life, why don't you reconsider your position on abortion. Most of us are uneasy about the taking of infant life, and we take action on this and (supposedly) punish perpetrators of infanticide.

"It's better to prevent the conception of an unwanted child than to abort that child afterwards"

Well there you have it, Phil states that a foetus is a child - he's dead right and good on him. The second question to the leader of the opposition on abortion was from president of Voice for Life, Catherine Gillies who asked "what would your government do to ensure that women were able to make a truly informed decision?". Phil said that he would support a greater level of objective, neutral information being made available to women. He also said that he wanted to see a hell of a lot more done to,

"prevent unwanted pregnancies that may result in abortion or result in the bringing into this World of kiddies who were never wanted and are destined to have miserable lives right from the start".

Firstly, it is not true that all unwanted children that are born are destined to life of misery. Secondly, following this logic, it would be acceptable to kill an infant if it was decided that that infant was destined to a life of misery.

Labels: abortion, Family First, Phil Goff, video

I've thought if for a while now, but Brendan Malone over at the Semper Vita blog sums up very nicely the Prime Ministers's ulterior motive in what seemed to many like political suicide and blatantly ignoring the voice of 87.6% of his constituents.

So what has the UN Security Council got to do with the NZ anti-smacking law?
Well, quite simply, the UN is politics on a global scale, and that means lots and lots of wheeling and dealing and unprincipled compromising in order to gain the perfect outcome that one desires.
In this case, Mr. Key has made no bones about the fact that he is definitely keen to secure a NZ seat on the UN Security Council, but to do that he’ll have to dance the dance of the UN faithful – and that doesn’t bode well for a change to New Zealand’s anti-smacking law.
Why?
Well, in 1993 New Zealand became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Then in 2003 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a report which criticized New Zealand regarding it’s failure to revoke the old Section 59 law.

Continue Reading. Brendan writes a Life Matters column every Friday, worth checking out.

Labels: John Key, smack, UN

In the first Century AD the Apostle Paul whose former occupation had been hunting and killing members of an annoying new belief-system called Christianity, went out on a limb, stating that the "Good News" was foolishness - here's the context in the book of Corinthians.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

- 1 Corinthians 1:20-25

Because I believe that the Bible is God's infalible word to all people, and that within it I find the most reasonable path to peace with God, I visited a rest-home today with two friends and we shared the Gospel with the fifteen or so people gathered in the lounge there. I'm no Spurgeon (he started preaching at the age of 18), and I'm not perfect just forgiven - in fact, I might just push back the next time you shove. Paul states later on in Corinthians that people who share the gospel are like jars of clay containing treasure. What he means is that it's not necessarily through persuasive words and a quality presentation that God saves people, but rather through the inherent value of the message itself. Further, the Christian gospel being the most reasonable path to peace with God is important as it is subsequently the only way to gain peace with God. Anyway, above is my reasoning for sharing the gospel with the residents at the rest-home - below is a summary of my message based on a section of the Apostle John's version of the gospel...

Jesus was talking to His followers, teaching them about how to be good disciples. He was essentially giving them the instructions they needed to understand how to be like Jesus, how to be Christians.

John 3:15 Whoever believes in Jesus shall not perish but have eternal life.

What does it mean to believe in Jesus? First, we are all sinful – we are kind and good a lot of the time, but we are also often sinful. Since God is absolutely holy, He cannot abide sin and must punish it. But God, very graciously provided a solution to our problem. God sent His only Son Jesus to the World as a sacrifice to pay for our sins. If we believe that Jesus did this for us, and we ask God to forgive us for our sins, God will not punish us.

Then Jesus said, “you will have eternal life if you believe in Me”. What is Eternal life? Jesus says that if we believe in Him, we will have eternal life, which means that when we die, we will go to Heaven to be with Him there – forever*. It’s hard to imagine…

Now, here is what Jesus said about God’s plan to save His people from their sins… Listen to Jesus’ words,

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

As I was saying before, God sent His Son to the World to provide a way for us to escape punishment and go to Heaven to be with Him. God is extremely loving and gracious to provide us with this way out. Because by nature, we all deserve the punishment for our sins – however God amazingly has given us this way out.

Can we please God with the good things that we do? The Bible says that we cannot be good enough for God. This is because God is so perfect, He is absolutely perfect and so – as the Apostle Paul said, even the very best things we do are as filthy rags in God’s eyes.

This puts us in a bad position because by ourselves, without Jesus’ help, we have to face God’s righteous wrath. But as Jesus said, God loved us so much that He sent His Son – Jesus to pay the price for our sin. Instead of us having to try to please God with good works – which is impossible, God promises us that if we put our trust in His Son, Jesus, then we need do nothing but have faith in Jesus’ death.

But how can God accept Jesus’ sacrifice? Can Jesus’ death really pay for our sins? Yes He can because Jesus was God and man. Because Jesus was God, when He died on behalf of us, that was sufficient payment to cover the sins of all people in the World. And because Jesus was also man, He was able to be tempted as we are tempted and to suffer as we suffered – but it is important to remember that through all of His earthly life, Jesus never ever sinned – He was absolutely perfect. Of course it spins back round here - Jesus was only able to be perfect because He was God. God is therefore able to accept Jesus’ death as a perfect sacrifice, payment for our sins.

By itself, this was not enough. Jesus also rose again – this meant that He had the power over death, and we are then able – after we die, to also be resurrected and go to Heaven forever – if we first put our faith in Jesus.

John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that,

the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Jesus is here talking about how people so often do the things that are wrong. Often men and women hate to do the things God has said we must do. For instance, Jesus says to us in the Bible that we must love the Lord with all our hearts. Now, often this is true, and we do love God, but there are times when we do not love Him with all of our hearts.

But not only this, they also delight in doing the things God has said we must not do. For instance The Ten Commandments is a list of rules that God has given us. The 5th commandment says “you shall not murder”. Now we all know it is wrong to murder! And we think “well I haven’t ever killed anyone, so perhaps God will be happy with me…” But Jesus said to his followers, “If any of you hates your brother, it is the same as murdering him”. This is a high standard, Jesus said that hating someone and murdering them were the same. I don’t know about you, but from time to time I have hated people.

John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Jesus continues talking about human-nature. He says, people who are sinful do not want to come to the light – because if they did, people would see that they were sinful.

John 3:21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

This means that if we are followers of Jesus, and we try to do what God has commanded us to do, then we won’t want to be in the dark, but instead we will want to be with God’s people – in the light. This is essentially a reference to the need for Christians to do good works. For without good works we cannot see Heaven - yet at the same time we're not saved through our good works - rather, they're an outworking of faith.

* I do not believe in the concept of eternity. I hold that everything that is not of this World operates outside time - a natural conclusion from my understanding that God created time itself. The terms "forever" and "eternity", then are an simplified expression of the reality, as many struggle with the concept of an existence outside of the dimension of time.

Labels: Bible, Christianity

I will update this post later with details of the fight, however for now, below is the only link you need to watch the fight. Youtube keeps deleting copies of the video but users keep uploading new versions, so checking the search-results page will probably get you a version of the fight you can watch before Youtube yanks it down!

Labels: video