Who's kidding who? Revised Sunday

I can't help wonder if the whole world has gone nuts. As I mentioned previously, I have watched the push for population control in countries where population was not really an issue. The whole world recoiled in horror when newstories around the globe reported on a baby being grabbed from its mother's arms and drowned in a mud puddle right in front of her and her family - this was the solution to parents who broke the one child per family rule in China. Usually, the mothers were dragged into clinics and forced to undergo an abortion prior to giving birth, but never let a live birth get in the way of progress. I have heard similiar stories from other countries where governments have involved themselves with direct population control measures on their citizens. So why do we have organizations going into other second and third world nations pushing for even more countries to enforce abortion rights. Have they not figured out that many women in less developed countries do not have the luxury of "choice" where abortion is allowed? I suspect that many abortion rights adherents are just plain ignorant, and really do mean well.

Another problem that has me stymied is the AIDS/HIV epidemic. Again, people are so busy jumping on bandwagons that they are missing the boat. I am a Catholic and my Church not only opposes abortion "rights" around the globe, especially in countries where women might be vulnerable to government interference, it also opposes the use of condoms and other forms of artificial birth control. Now many get up in arms over that. They scream bloody murder, accusing the Church of causing the death of millions due to AIDS and other diseases. Yep. Never mind that the Church also opposes all of the typical methods of spreading the disease and that the lack of condoms does not "cause" HIV or AIDS, people seem to be ridiculously selective on which rules to obey. If you are going to commit a sin that the Church has already warned could cause you to go to hell, such as pre-marital or extra-marital sex or sodomy, why are you going to obey the Church's commandment on condoms? Some groups even blame the Church for the most amazing things - I read a BBC transcript after watching a documentary that left me dumbfounded. The documentary reported on a number of cases in Africa that highlighted the problems with the Church's stance on condoms. One such case was a father who was sexually molesting his two young, teen daughters. They were exposed to huge risks, including pregnancy and STI's. I don't remember if either daughter became pregnant (probably), or if either daughter got sick (likely) - all I could remember was that the reporter was angry at the Church for not granting the father permission to use condoms while he engaged in sex with his own daughters against their will. Does the BBC think that it is OK for fathers to molest their daughters? The Church strictly forbids this. Does the BBC believe that a father who is raping his daughters is going to use condoms in order to protect their health???? Frankly, the documentary showed a monumental lack of understanding of the situation in Africa. In addition to being victimized by unfaithful husbands (and in some areas an extremely unbalanced rule over what constitutes adultery for men and for women), women can be war trophies, be publically humiliated as a weapon of war against the men in their villages, can be bought or sold as slave concubines or forced into prostitution. In this environment, you could have the condom manufacturers working day and night and produce enough condoms to cover the entire continent of Africa until it is hip deep in condoms - but until you alter the problematic behaviour and attitudes towards women and sex - it won't make any difference.

Another example of weirdness is the situation that exists in the Philipines and Thailand. Both countries experienced their first AIDS case around the same time. Both experienced the same initial rate of increase. Both leaders realised that they were facing a potential epidemic and had to do something about it. However, both countries took very different roads in terms of how to deal with the problem. The Philipines is a Catholic country and the approach was also very Catholic - the solution was not to do nothing as some have suggested, but to deal with the disease as a disease and work on the root causes. Thailand decided to take a different approach. Just as doctors tell us to wash our hands to avoid the spread of colds and flus - Thailand told its citizens to use condoms. They put condoms everywhere. There were baskets of condoms in every brothel and in every night club. Condoms were everywhere. There were some who objected to this; but, the country moved forward and is now considered to be a shining beacon in the fight against AIDS. So much so, that the world seems to be panicking about the poor old Philipines - I read somewhere that the Philipines are supposedly sitting on a powderkeg ready to explode. The Philipines might be wiped out unless they adopt the methods used in Thailand. Oh boy! This is were we need mathematicians. I can guarantee you that if the Philipines adopts Thailand's Methods, they will achieve Thailand's results, and that would be a tragedy of epidemic proportions. Because, you see, Thailand is more than a hundred times worse off than the Philipines in the battle against AIDS. Thailand is supposed to be a huge success, yet compared to the Philipines, it is a medical disaster of Biblical proportions. Both countries started with a single case, but after twenty years, Thailand ballooned to over 750,000 cases, with over 20,0000 cases involving children under the age of 15. In 2001, they had reduced their new cases each year to about 21,000 - I hope that they have reduced it further, but they have already reached the stage where the disease will be very difficult to stop. On the other hand, the Philipines peaked at about 10,000 cases and by 2001, had about 2000 cases (none reported under the age of 15). They probably have new cases each year, but not enough to make the news.

Of course, I should point out that I don't believe for a moment that no one in the Philipines is using condoms, or committing adultery or pre-marital sex, or engaging in prostitution (sex tourism is ever present in both countries) - frankly, I doubt that the entire nation became a nation of saints. However, the people of the Philipines get it. HIV/AIDS is not like the common cold, it is not airborne. HIV/AIDS is not spread by the lack of condoms. It is spread primarily by risky sexual behaviour and through intravenous drug use involving shared needles (FYI condoms are useless against this type of transmission). Any sensible person should understand that if you want to avoid acquiring the virus, the primary method is to avoid the risky behavior. If you are unable or unwilling to avoid the risky behavior, then you must take measures to minimize your risk. The people in Thailand are living their lives as if the HIV/AIDS virus were a fact of life, just like the common cold, and you just have to take a few precautions and hope for the best. Just as washing your hands is not a guarantee against getting colds, and many people do not wash their hands as often as they should (just hang around a rest room for a while); people who also are just as informed about the use of condoms, do not always use them, or use them properly, or store them properly, etc. They feel secure in the false belief that it won't happen to them, and if enough other people are being diligent, then they don't have to worry about it. And, if it happens, well what could they do - it's an epidemic.

I can only hope that the Church continues to do what it does, and that it is successful enough to save humanity from its own stupidity. Ironically, the Catholic Church probably does more to help people with HIV/AIDS around the world than any other group or government.

God Bless.

It's Duck hunting season - GO OILERS GO

My hockey team, The Edmonton Oilers, is in Anaheim tonight. Anaheim did well in their last game and should be proud, but ducks never do well in oil slicks, and we are riding high to win the Western Conference.

Go! Oilers! Go!

Letter to the Editor sent to WCR May 24 2006

I am Pro-Life and a Roman Catholic. I know that if a pregnant woman's life is in danger, a doctor is medically and morally obligated to do whatever he or she is able to do in order to save the life of the mother, even if the medical procedures involved may cause the death of the unborn child. As not all at-risk mothers desire to cause or risk the death of their child, this can be a heartbreaking decision, and some will choose to give their own child a chance at life, even if the cost of that decision is their own life. Sometimes there is no choice, as with an ectopic pregnancy, whereby there is no way to save the child and only the mother can be saved. It is not a requirement of being a faithful Catholic or Pro-Life that a woman die for her child. It is a common misconception that the abortion rights movement has anything to do with saving lives. The sole purpose of abortion rights is to allow abortion on demand for the full term of any pregnancy, for any reason. Ironically, this is called "choice". Ironic because Pro-Choice groups generally do not have any interest in alternatives to abortion, or providing any support to women who may choose to not have an abortion. On the flip side, Pro-Life groups are in the business of providing women with the opportunity to choose to not have an abortion. Abortion is a practice that has been with us for thousands of years and will likely continue for as long as there are women who feel that they do not have other options. Pro-Lifers offer a variety of options (other than abortion) for women in difficult situations, and provide the means to be able to take advantage of these opportunities. Pro-Life organizations also provide assistance to women who chose to have an abortion but later regretted it, or faced other complications. I am Pro-Life because I want to offer a choice to women who feel that they have no choice.

Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Family

In a recent edition of the Western Catholic Reporter, I saw a letter to the editor regarding an alternative view of the three basic Pros - Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, and Pro-Family. The respondent wrote about the "Language Trap" and how pro-life really meant anti-abortion and that a better way was to support abortion to preserve a mother's life, but not for use as a back-up method of birth control (basically the respondent is Pro-Life, but just didn't know it). The respondent also believed that Pro-Marriage really meant anti-same sex marriage and considered everyone to be equal and to truly be pro-marriage, one had to accept gay and lesbian marriage. Lastly, the respondent viewed Pro-Family as being anti-gay family and anti-gay rights; therefore, to be truly pro-family, one had to welcome all forms of "family" types and styles.

It is ironic that the original letter to the editor highlighted the existence of the language trap, yet missed the nature of the trap so completely. This is another one of those examples of the madness that has crept into our culture. I responded with a letter to the editor of my own and placed a copy of that letter in my blog.

First, I am Pro-Life. This means so much more than being anti-abortion. In fact, those of us who are Pro-Life are actually closer to being Pro-Choice (from a language perspective) than those who claim to be. We don't use the term "choice" because it has become synonymous with "abortion"; however, the practice of abortion has been around for literally thousands of years and was considered by many early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, to be a tool of oppression used by men against women. The reality is that the Pro-Life movement has been about providing a choice to women that previously felt that they had no choice. A choice to have a child when they feared the stigma of single-motherhood, a choice given to them by those who wouldn't judge. A choice to give birth to a child, when financially, without help, it might have been extremely difficult. A chance to bring a life into the world when they were abandoned by all others, and to give that life to a family that might never be more than two without help. Abortion has been around since before the foundation of modern medicine. It was considered barbaric by Hippocrates and sinful (forbidden) by the early Christian Church - the practice of abortion is specifically forbidden by the original Hippocratic Oath and by the Didache (one of the earliest, extra-biblical Christian writings).

Ironically, the writer of that letter to the editor fell victim to one of the largest myths perpetrated by the anti-life propaganda machine. The writer assumed that the pro-life movement had anything to do with allowing women to die as a result of their pregnancies. WRONG. This was never an issue. Even according to the Roman Catholic Church, if a woman's life is in danger and the necessary medical procedure saves her life but causes the death of her unborn child - this is a tragedy, but it isn't a sin, nor is it condemned by most Pro-Lifers or the Church. A more direct example is the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby has implanted outside of the womb. The child must be removed in order to save the life of the mother, but it currently isn't possible to re-implant the embryo in a safer location. The child dies, but the medical intent was not to kill the child, but only to save the mother. Had this procedure not been done, both would have died. Generally, Abortions are not performed to save a mother's life. The sole intent of an abortion is to kill the baby. A current hot topic is that of the Partial Birth abortion. Read up on what is involved in such an abortion and it becomes very apparent that it is not something to be performed on a woman who is in ill health or in any danger of dying. If you were late in a risky pregnancy and you needed to have the child removed to preserve your health, you might have labour induced early, or undergo a cesarean section; and, depending on the gestational age of the child, this might be risky for the child (but it would be morally acceptable). However, to have labour induced and then stopped midway through the procedure in order have the doctor murder the child and then continue with the delivery... Sorry, but the sole intent was to kill the baby and the mother's life and/or health was not an issue.

Of course, for me, being Pro-Life is so much more than being anti-abortion. I also oppose the death penalty, euthanasia, torture (even in military or prison settings), cosmetic animal testing, and animal abuse. I favour fair trade with developing countries and reject the exploitation of women and children around the globe. Being Pro-Life means pro-all life, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

On the side of marriage and family, our society has reached a point where we want everybody to feel happy and normal. We don't want to offend anyone, and we want everyone to see us as being "good" or "politically correct" or "open-minded". My grandmother was a very wise woman and she told me many things - one of which was a warning to not be so open-minded that my brains fell out. And so it goes - we used to treat depression and now we have "death with dignity" - we are fast approaching a time with the prescription for suicidal depression will be a lethal dose of pills.

The reality is that we have marriages and families that are disfunctional, certainly less than ideal. But instead of striving for the ideal and promoting the best, even knowing that not all will or can acheive it (yet be better off with the knowledge of what can be), we have changed our goals. I doubt there will ever be a time when we won't have single mothers and/or fathers (whether unwed or divorced or widowed). I don't want to make anyone feel badly about their situation and we, as a society, should certainly be open to the diversity that exists with families, especially for the sake of the children. However, I draw the line at encouraging the deliberate creation of single parent families. I am very concerned about the ressurgence of polygamy, especially in its current form. And, I am flabbergasted that any government would redefine "marriage" in order to make marriage conform to the lifestyle choices of homosexuals. Gays and Lesbians have always had the right to marry, the same as everyone else. Some exercised this right, although some of the reasons may not have been the best. Marriage is not supposed to be soley about "sex" and "lust", it is about companionship and procreation. Marriage is about providing a stable environment in which to raise children - who need both a mother (female) and a father (male) as role models (even if the children may be gay or lesbian). It is the downfall of "marriage" that we have reduced it to something that two or more people do just because they can, or "because I love him/her/it".

If the government decided that marriage was discriminatory and banned it (as an alternative to redefining it), many heterosexuals would continue to marry. Most, if not all, Christians would certainly continue to marry. We don't do this just because the government grants us certain "benefits" (which only exist because of the inherent inequality that exists within a heterosexual union - only women can conceive and give birth to children and nurse them, which affects seniority in the workplace and pensionable earnings). Yet, homosexuals have pushed for the "right" (it isn't a right, not all people are able to marry) to marry someone of the same gender and have been "waiting" for the opportunity to do so. Many who are taking advantage of the "opportunity" presented with legalized marriage in various countries have stated that it is their desire to make a "statement" showing that they are "normal" and deserve to have "equal" benefits. If this was something that was suitable to same-sex marriage, the only wait would be for the "legalization" of existing marriages (and not just the staged political extravaganzas).

To be pro-marriage, it helps to understand just what marriage is. Today, marriage as been watered down to the point where it isn't surprising that so many marriages are failing. So many people are going through the motions of "marriage" but are not truly married at all. Consequently, we have a large number of people who want to share "marriage" with those who previously were considered to be ineligible. There is no end in sight. We have polygamy being practiced openly in Canada, under the guise of religion, but by all appearances as a means for older men to have sexual relations with very young women, and then to add new young ladies as the previous "brides" get older. Of course, in Canada the legal age for consentual sex for a female is currently only 14 (unless that bill has passed by the time you read this). We have essentially legalized same-sex "marriage" and will soon legalize gay adoption, even though many European nations have shunned that extra step. The theory is that this progress will not have any effect on religious freedom and will simply be a secular evolvement. Yet, those who oppose same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds will be forced to support it. So far, priests are not obliged to perform ceremonies inside a Catholic Church, but Justices of the Peace must perform these ceremonies or quit their jobs, regardless of their religious affiliation. Halls owned by Catholic Groups are being forced to either rent their premises for gay marriage receptions or pay penalties. For a brief while, a lower court in Saskatchewan ruled that a portion of the Bible relating to homosexuals was hate literature - this ruling was overturned by a higher court, for now. And for what? I am pro-life and that also means that I oppose gay bashing, I support the dignity of all persons, and I have no trouble with homosexual attending schools (even Catholic ones), earning an income and living their lives. I would not be troubled if my neighbour was gay, or my sons were taught by a gay teacher, or my wedding flowers were designed by a gay florist (actually, I suspect that they were, but that was none of my business, and the flowers were fabulous). However, I also know that the basic building block for society is a stable marriage and family unit - this means we must move back to the true essence of marriage, not the sham that it has become.

Population Explosion Implosion

Have you ever looked at the world around you and wondered if you were the only sane person left?

I grew up in the period between the time when everyone thought they had to build bomb shelters to protect themselves from a nuclear war, and the period when everyone stopped building bomb shelters because they believed we were all going to die in a nuclear war and bomb shelters were only going to delay the inevitable. I grew up in a period when many believed that the earth was going to experience massive overpopulation and that we would run out of food and other essentials. I read the novels and watched the movies and listened to various people crunching numbers, describing our exponential growth, and promoting various measures that could be implemented to ensure our survival. Over time, I also learned that mathematicians knew nothing of human nature and really shouldn’t get involved in matters they knew nothing about. I also noticed that there were many promoters of this nonsense that were not as stupid and I might have supposed, nor did they have anyone’s best interest at heart – except their own.

Humans used to have large families. This was useful in an agrarian society and old habits followed us into and through the industrial revolution. However, family sizes did begin to shrink long before the massive propaganda concerning the Population Explosion. And each generation, with only minor exceptions, had smaller and smaller family sizes. Governments were, and still are, seeking population control measures for developing countries when the best method of birth control on the planet was and is “money”. The more money and the better odds of survival (including education and job prospects) that a family has, the less children they need to have and tend to have.

Yet, despite this obvious situation, combined with the knowledge that the other situation that has led to more people at this point in time is an improved life expectancy, I remember being taught about the starving children in China, Africa and India and how it was blamed on overpopulation; and at the same time being taught that the most densely populated country on earth was a white, European nation (this was in the 1970's). In deed, many of the most densely populated cities are from developed countries and were (and remain) quite prosperous. Further, many of the problems in the “undeveloped” countries had nothing to do with overpopulation. I was very young at the time, still in my teens, so I doubt I was the only one to notice that the problem with overpopulation had more to do with the colour of your skin, than with actual numbers. It wasn’t surprising to me to later learn that the precursor to the Population Explosion was the eugenics movement. And, while the theory of genetic improvement seemed reasonable to me as a university student (now graduate) with a genetics bent, it was hard to ignore that some of the more famous adherents to eugenics were a lot less scientific about the concept. Adolf Hitler started with the “obvious defectives” and worked his way up to slaughtering Jews and might have made his way to Catholics who opposed his views, had he not been stopped. On the other side of the ocean, Margaret Sanger founded an organization that would become known as Planned Parenthood. She believed that birth control and abortion were preferable (less disturbing) methods of reducing undesirable populations, as well as useful for having more fun without responsibility. Like Hitler, she also rejected genetically imperfect human specimens, and also included “races” such as Asians, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Catholics (I don’t know how she figured Catholicism was a race). Having watched the push for population control lead to extraordinary situations in India and China, I came to believe that eugenics had no place in science or in our human development. Only a completely ignorant buffoon, or a totally malicious individual, would have pushed for a one child per family rule in a country were the culture was totally male dominated – a situation we see in China (India has a milder version of the same problem). Only someone completely blind (shortsighted) would not have seen that this would lead to a massive gender imbalance and a social catastrophe in the future, only a truly wicked person wouldn’t be bothered by this eventuality.

With the drive to reduce the “surplus” population (those considered to be less desirable), without the desire to appear to be doing just that, we now have the ridiculous situation where we are now facing a population implosion – ironically, the greatest reduction in birthrates are appearing in the predominantly white, developed nations (see money is still be best birth control). Birthrates are also falling in the developing nations as well, but to a lesser degree. China is on the verge of becoming an economic superpower, thanks to its one billion plus citizens, only to face the specter of a rising generation with many young men who will have to either import brides or leave the country in order to marry, an aging population with insufficient offspring to support it, and the potential for massive euthanasia programs to deal with the resulting medical, economic and manpower shortfalls.

In order to reduce the effects of the looming population implosion, France and Quebec (Canada) have implemented programs to pay families to have more children. Other regions may have considered this option as well. However, once a trend gets established it isn’t easy to turn it around. Further, we have a mob mentality, just as it wasn’t good to have everyone suddenly stop having larger families, it would also not be good to have everyone having children just for the sake of increasing the world birthrates. I wouldn’t want to see a true population explosion. I would rather see a push toward responsible behavior and more respect for the family and let nature resolve itself.