ABORTION

Apparently, some time in the recent past, there was some debate about abortion in Canada.  I am wondering when this debate occurred.  Anyway, it seems to be a sensitive issue in Canada.  Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1988 (perhaps this was the debate I'm hearing about, which would mean it occurred before I was born), and it is funded by the government (excluding in New Brunswick).  Last year, during the G8 summit in Toronto, Stephen Harper said that Canada would not fund abortions in foreign nations.

Harper has since been insisting he doesn’t want to reopen the debate on abortion in Canada. But many have noted the contradiction between a foreign policy that rejects abortion for women in developing countries and Canadian laws that give women here access to abortions paid by government insurance.

I don't see any contradiction here.  By that logic, Canadian taxpayers would fund social services and infrastructure in developing countries, in addition to many other things.  Anyway, Harper's statement prompted this:

The Liberal Party, the main opposition to Harper’s Conservatives, has tried to make the most of the issue. Led by their struggling leader, Michael Ignatieff, it tried to pass a motion in parliament demanding that the government “refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States.” 

I love it when lefties use the term "right-wing" as if it were an insult.  Anyway, that motion failed because anti-abortion liberal MP's didn't vote (in Canada, MP's must vote along party lines, something I find stupid).

Anyway, my reason for bringing this up is that I wanted to write a post on abortion.  I would argue that any abortion committed after life begins is murder.  I am unsure whether there is scientific consensus on when life begins, but, I would argue that life begins at conception based on the fact that the when the sperm, which contains 23 chromosomes, and the ovum, which contains 23 chromosomes, are combined, you get the 46 chromosomes that constitute the individual.  However, I do have some problems with that reasoning, because that would mean that killing a zygote is murder, and a zygote (which is a cell), is not really a person.  And, while a zygote is a distinct organism, so is a deer (for example).  Personally, I have no moral issues with killing a deer.  So, if a zygote isn't a human, why should I have any moral issues with killing one?  To me, that is semantic, and a debate best left up to ethicists.  To avoid such ethical issues, it is better to simply say that life begins at conception, because it certainly doesn't begin by going through the birth canal (unless that is some sort of magic portal, which I don't think it is).    

Let's Be Reasonable

I would like to address a topic that I have been meaning to address, but have not done so yet.  And that topic is religion.  Like homosexuals, those lacking a religious belief are generally assumed to be politically left-of-centre.  And, also like homosexuals, there do exist those lacking a religious belief that are conservative.  There even exist conservative homosexuals who lack a religious belief (such as myself).

I consider myself agnostic, because I believe that we cannot know for certain whether or not a deity (or any supernatural entity) exists (unless it were proven that one does exist).  And, just because modern science doesn't prove the existence of some supernatural entity, that doesn't necessarily mean that it never will.

For all practical purposes, I suppose I am atheist, in that I would only accept a supernatural entity/diety if it were scientifically proven.  In accordance with the principal of Occam's razor, that dictates that the hypothesis that depends upon the fewest assumptions is generally favorable, I do not believe that anything supernatural exists.  Most things can be better explained with science.  And, for that which cannot be explained with science, new scientific discoveries have elucidated what has previously been unexplained.  Ergo, it stands to reason that new scientific discoveries may elucidate what currently cannot be explained with science.  Having said that, science is not absolute.  Existence is mysterious, and, in my opinion, we humans cannot be absolutely certain that things are how they seem, regardless of how likely or unlikely they are not how they seem.

I do not view those with religious beliefs as inherently inferior to myself because they are religious, just as I would hope that religious people would not view me as inferior because I am not.  I have a great deal of respect for religion, as I believe it plays a significant role in society.  In this comment I made to a post at GayPatriot, I explained my views on this subject.  So, instead of writing something new, I will just recreate most of that comment because it does the job.

I have a large amount of respect for religion, the role it plays in society, and the people who commit to it. I doubt I would ever be able to understand faith, but I can respect how important it is (as long as I still have freedom to be secular). It provides a valuable structure and a means by which to keep people grounded and restrained, as well as a means by which to keep society moral. As long as the religion is a benevolent force (unlike Islam), I condemn those who mock it. They should have the freedom to mock it, but I cannot understand or appreciate their intolerant motivation.

As a social (or cultural) conservative who favors limited government, I recognize religion as a valuable means by which to propagate a moral structure in society and it does so much better than government ever could. In other words, it keeps people and society “clean” and modest.
I do not have respect for those who, whether conservative or liberal, who [sic] fail to respect another point of view, so long as that point of view allows for dissenting point of views [sic].

While many atheists/agnostics claim to be rational, I will say that many of them have an irrational opposition to religion.  Because I was raised secularly, I have no understanding of the nature of religious faith, so, for that reason, I cannot condemn it as "irrational."  The primary function of most secular organizations seems to be to pass judgement on others, which I find ironic.

As for the nature of the relationship between religious people and secular people, I would hope there could be a mutual respect.  Not all atheists are religion-hating liberals.  Public expressions of faith do not threaten me, just as they shouldn't threaten anyone else.  In addition, religion is not necessary for morality.  Most people are able to tell the difference between right and wrong.  That doesn't mean those people necessarily avoid doing wrong, but many do.  That also doesn't mean that secular people are as moral as religious people; the opposite is probably true.  

There are plenty of secular conservatives.  And, something that also applies to gay conservatives is that much of the incredulity of this apparent oxymoron is based upon misconceptions.  The misconception of the average conservative as being a religious zealot that means to dictate what people are allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or something.  While there are those on the right who may fit that description, there are many who do not.  I mentioned this issue in a previous post, in which I also present an argument (someone else's) for cultural conservatism.

Steam, Baby, Steam

Here is a fascinating article (h/t Instapundit) on the scientific process involved in mining oil from sand that occurs in Alberta's oil sands.  And, here is a very salient point (from that article):

Modern capitalism and the technology it engenders has lifted a significant proportion of humanity out of our natural state of abject poverty for the first time in history. 

Indeed, Alberta's oil sands stimulated the economy and caused an economic boom there.  Alberta has, by far, the highest per capita GDP of all provinces.  Its median income, as recorded by the 2006 census, was $70,986 CAD (approx. $63,900 USD in 2006, or $71,631 USD now).  According to Canadian free market think tank the Fraser Institute, Alberta trailed only Delaware and Texas in economic freedom among US States and Canadian Provinces.  

Also, the oil sands tick off environmentalists, which is always a bonus.

A subsequent article, by the same author (Ronald Bailey), describes the benefits the US would amass by importing Canadian oil:

TransCanada’s Robert Jones, who is in charge of getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved and completed, pointed out the energy security benefits to the United States of importing oil from Canada. He asked, why would the U.S. want to depend on “conflict oil” imported from countries run by unsavory regimes like those of Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? And whose oil is dirtier? After all, producing oil sands crude in Canada already includes the costs of reclaiming the land and a whole panoply of other environmental regulations.

 The assembled Canadian oil moguls cited studies [PDF] that project the creation of as many as 600,000 jobs and a $775 billion boost to the U.S. gross national product by 2035 as a result of importing Canadian oil. 

To environmentalists concerned about disturbing boreal forest, the percentage of Canada’s total area covered by boreal forest that is disturbed for oil development is about 0.019%.  That article also describes another method of extracting oil from sand that is used for oil 350 feet below the surface, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and its environmental impact:

Interestingly, anti-oil sands activists who eagerly highlight photos of the vast oils sands mining pits, don’t tend to show photos of SAGD facilities. Likely this is because such pictures would not do much to scare target audiences—the footprint of SAGD operations typically occupies only 5 percent of the land from which oil is being recovered, leaving most of the forests undisturbed. 

Back to "Dirty Oil Sands," to which I linked earlier in this post, they present a number of beautiful images on their website.  Personally, I have always been awestruck by massive industrial structures and works.  

The Anger of the Green Party is Proportional to my Happiness

The government of Canada is cutting funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43.1%, shortly after a 6.9% cut.  Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is outraged:

Harper’s Throne Speech in June committed to improving the environmental assessment process, and instead he is driving a stake into its heart, it makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment? 

I disagree with subsidies to oil companies, but this is good news to me.  Anything that infuriates Elizabeth May makes me happy (in general). 

The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians.

Really?

A poll released this week found 45 per cent of surveyed Canadians said the federal government should make health care — a topic the government and federal politicians are often shy to talk about — a priority in next week's budget.  That's compared to 35 per cent who chose the economy, and 15 per cent who picked the environment.

Emphasis added.
In a throne speech, Harper stated:

“Our Government is committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

Perhaps eliminating excess spending on this environmental agency is what Harper meant when he said the government will “improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects.”

I direct you to Bjørn Lomborg, whose views are similar to mine:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

 I don't agree with him about spending money on fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and water, but with everything else I agree.

The radical environmental movement is largely based upon emotion and fear rather than rational analysis.  Protecting the environment should be a priority, but it should be done within reasonability.  The Earth belongs to humans, and it is ours to exploit for our own personal gain.  But we have to keep in mind that protecting the environment is also in our best interest.  We just can’t let emotion dictate how we approach environmental protection.

Industrial activity does not equal environmental destruction.  Industrial sites can be reclaimed. In addition, the environmental friendliness of industrial practices has drastically improved in recent decades.  The role environmental regulations has played in that should not be ignored, but, in my opinion, the reach of environmental regulations is overkill.  It just doesn’t make sense to impede business with regulations, especially regulations that have questionable efficacy.  In some cases, environmentally friendly business practices are good for business.  For example, environmentally friendly products are ubiquitous and the efficient use of energy saves money.  

This brings me back to the original topic of this post, the federal government’s cut on the funding for the CEAA.  In addition to the obvious advantage (decrease in government is (generally) always good), I applaud this move for the reasons above.  That Elizabeth May and the Green Party are angry is always a bonus.  

Gender Bending Diversity Training

Gender Spectrum Diversity Training sounds hideously politically correct on its own, but that was the name of a program targeted towards kindergarten students:

Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, CA has joined the chorus of those wishing to mainstream 'gender-bending' by enacting a program this week that, according to a press release, tells kindergarteners 'there are more than two genders.'

 The kindergarten through fifth grade school hosted a 2-day program for students titled, 'Gender Spectrum Diversity Training,' in which single-sex Hawaiian geckos and transgender clownfish were brought in to teach children that 'there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls,' according to Redwood Heights principal Sara Stone. Students received gender diversity training as they learned about 'boy snakes that act 'girly'.' 

This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women. A couple in Toronto, Canada has sparked outrage because they refuse to assign a specific gender to their infant 'Storm,' preferring instead to believe 'a child's sex should not determine his or her place in the world.

Firstly, I highly doubt kindergarten students understand what gender is.  If little boys act like girls sometimes, they are not self-conscious about it.  They don't understand that what they are doing is "gender bending."  Secondly, lizards and fish are not comparable to humans.  There are numerous species that exhibit transsexuality (called hermaphroditism in biology).  For hermaphroditic species, either having both male and female sexual organs simultaneously or changing sexual organs at some point is common, if not universal.  Clownfish, unlike humans, are hermaphroditic (they are born male, but may become female).  Obviously, kindergarten students would not be able understand that, but deriving a "lesson" from a flawed comparison seems unethical to me.  That is not to mention everything else that is horribly wrong with indoctrinating children with this politically correct "gender bending" agenda.  

In human culture, there is a reason for the social construct of gender: that males and females are fundamentally different and have fundamentally different roles.  I think women should have the same rights as men, but that does not mean that women are the same as men.  If small children have problems with their gender, then they should be allowed to deal with that on their own.  This is yet another example of the illusion that life is easy and everyone loves everyone that children are perpetually exposed to in schools.  Life is hard, and it is even harder when you think it is easy.  Instead of indoctrinating children with vile ideals and exposing them to sex at a disgustingly early age (see also, this post), schools should focus on teaching children things like science and math and let them establish their own ideals through their own experiences.  

Society is gradually becoming more accepting of deviance of gender roles.  What is wrong with the expectation that men act like men and women act like women?  In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.  School is a joke and parents are becoming so over-protective that their children are not mature enough that they can't function in the real world because they never had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.  The world is gradually becoming an abhorrently progressive dystopia.  The traditional family unit is important to the health of society.  I will go into that in more detail in a subsequent post.  For now, I will conclude that, given that premise, traditional gender roles are also important for the health of society.  Exposing children to androgyny cannot be good.  

I also wanted to say something about this, the Toronto couple that is raising a "genderless" child that was mentioned in that article I linked to.  

A Toronto couple is taking their beliefs about parenting and gender stereotypes to new heights: They refuse to tell people the gender of 4-month-old Storm, reports the Toronto Star. Even the kid's grandparents are in the dark. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”

I do believe that parents (not schools) should be able to raise their children how they want to, but this seems almost criminal.  This has to be some form of child abuse.

Militant progressivism has reached a new low.