This is religious discrimination.

I saw this one on the NZ Conservative Coalition. Oxford apparently tried to ban a Christian organization from a freshman involvement fair on the premise that it would make students feel unwelcome. However, I think this move makes students feel unwelcome in a way different than they claim. By not allowing a Christian group there on the grounds they did, they are committing religious discrimination and alienating any Christians. How are Christians supposed to feel welcome on campus when their religious organizations are banned on campus?

More politically correct university madness — Kiwiblog

To say that only whites were oppressive is to be ignorant of history.

I saw this one on the NZ Conservative Coalition. The following is an article about model Munroe Berdorf’s comments about whites as being inherently racist and oppressive. She seems to forget that whites (in the case of what was being talked about, white Europeans) weren’t the only ones who participated in slavery–there were ethnic groups in every race who participated in some form of slavery. This isn’t to say that the slavery and oppression that whites participated in wasn’t bad…I’m just saying to say that to say they were the only oppressive ones is to forget history. Enjoy!

BBC allows Bigot to brand white people as inherently oppressive and violent — Whale Oil Beef Hooked | Whaleoil Media

Reasons to Not Have an Abortion #11

Part eleven in the series.

11: Doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath, and one of the most important parts of the oath is that they do no harm. However, some doctors will withhold care from babies born just short of the age of viability when if they did give care, that child is much more likely to survive. Last I checked, denying someone care like that that allows them to die is doing harm to someone.

Reasons to Not Have an Abortion #10

Part ten in the series.


#10: This reason encompasses four common arguments for saying an unborn child is not a human: size, level of development, environment, and dependency. Let’s start firstly with size. People who are smaller of size; children, people with dwarfism, or people of shorter stature, are not less valid as human beings. They are equal. In the mainstream, we still consider them to also be humans. Therefore, a fetus, simply because he or she is small, does not make that human any less valid. Next, let’s talk level of development. A forty year old is more developed than a ten year old, and a four year old is more developed than a fetus. But is it okay to kill the ten year old simply because they’re less developed? No, it is not. FYI, that’s called murder (premeditated?). So in the same way, it is wrong to kill an unborn human simply because they are less developed than their born counterparts. Next, let’s consider environment. In a short span of time, when the baby exits the vaginal canal and moves from one environment to another, just a foot or so away, does this miraculous passage instill humanity in that baby? No, it does not. In the same way that a person in Indiana is no less valuable than one in Ohio. Or if a person travels a few feet, it does not change their value as a person. Finally, let’s consider the level of dependency. Just because a person is dependent on another, does not mean it is okay to kill the dependent. Toddlers and newborns depend on their parents to feed and support them. Even teens and college students still rely upon their parents in some ways, depending on how autonomous they are. If a toddler were to fall into a swimming pool, and need your help to be rescued, would you deny your support because that toddler depends on you for their survival? In society, we already condemn such inaction as neglect and worse. In the same way, we should not deny the unborn our support because they depend on the mother for life support.

Reasons to Not Have an Abortion #9

Part nine in the series.

#9: This reason is all about the criteria science has laid out for life and related biological facts. While there are some things mentioned that there seems to be some disagreement on, some of the other things presented are well agreed upon and not up for debate, no matter what popular opinion is. For example, lack of heartbeat during the early stages of development is often used by pro-choice advocates for this–but if a person has a cardiac arrest or another cardiac cessation…we don’t consider them to not be a human being just because their heart has stopped…the same should be true for the littlest human. Additionally, feeling pain is another common argument (as the recent House bill indicates). There seems to be argument on when exactly unborn children feel pain (I’ve seen 20 and 24 and 27 weeks). Regardless of this, there are actual born and grown people who can no longer feel pain in parts of their bodies because of nerve damage. We don’t think of these people as any less because of this, so why should we for the unborn? To drive this point home, there is no objective way to measure amount of pain, and there seems to be some variation in this development. Also, as we well know from the variety of human appearance, a baby has distinct DNA from both his or her mother and father….if we didn’t, we’d be clones of our parents. Sometimes, children even have different blood types from one of their parents. I don’t remember if that is true for myself, but I do recollect having read articles of this possibility. Additionally, the criteria for life is that living things are distinguished from dead things and non-living things by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and (eventually) reproduce. A human embryo has this life-denoting capacity.