Thursday, May 29, 2008

Went to see the doctor today

It turns out that what I have are not migraines. If they were migraines, they wouldn't be reappearing every day. They'd last for 2 or 3 days then go away. Mine mostly appear mid-morning to mid-afternoon, and go away in the evenings. (After the younger kids are in bed - coincidence?) I wouldn't be able to play sports, but I am and not only that, but the headache (if I have one) usually goes away as soon as I leave for soccer. If they were migraines, I'd be lying in bed unable to function, but I've never been incapable of functioning. They slow me down, I have less energy and they are usually accompanied with fatigue, but I can still function. What's more, back when I used to be able to lie down and sleep when I had a headache, they'd disappear after a nap. (Don't get that luxury anymore.)

So what I do have are tensory headaches. Headaches due to tension and stress. Who me? Stressed out? A housewife with nothing to do all day, but watch a couple of kids, cook a couple of meals and basically take advantage of her husband's money? For those who wonder what a housewife does all day anyway... now you know that whatever she isn't doing, it's gotta be pretty stressful if it can give her regular headaches every dang day.

Doctor said he could give me a mild anti-depressant to take everyday, which would relax me and keep the headaches at bay. I declined, since I prefer not to ingest unnecessary items. Although, when you think of it, are they any worse than the advil and coffee I ingest every day to get rid of the headaches? He also said, if I were to go a more natural route, one way to alleviate the pain would be to massage the lower neck. Also, what I am doing, getting out and playing sports, is good for me. I need to go out and get a change of scenery, relax... Sounds good to me.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Life in May - Spring is in the air!

Caught these two sleeping in...
We celebrated Maryssa's birthday May 3.
She turned 8 on March 30, but it wasn't until May that we had the birthday party, because this year, we did it at a ranch. The kids all rode the horse (Benji), and had a great time. More pics on Flickr.

Nicolas likes to drink his "coffee" in the morning with Mom.
He actually gets about a 1/4 of a cup of weak coffee in the bottom of his cup, then I fill the rest with milk, so it is barely lukewarm and very diluted. I add a bit of honey, and voilà - "coffee".

Time to get out there...
... and start drinking coffee at the bistro set, from which we can admire these beautiful flowers, and more as the season progresses.

Time to get out the pretty placemats and enjoy spring...
... even when it is raining out and you have to eat in.

My Backyard in Spring:
Who needs to go camping when we can live here all year round? Love this place.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Shoulder Pads

I have always hated shoulder pads, ever since I was a teenager. I finally ripped them out of the dress I was wearing, at which my mother exclaimed "Why did you do that?" But Mom, I already look like a football player!!! With shoulders like mine, I don't need shoulder pads!

I don't get why any woman needs to wear shoulder pads. Who invented the things anyway? Some feminist designer who decided that women should look manly? If you have small shoulders and a delicate, feminine shape, why in heck would you want to cover that up with something as ugly as shoulder pads? And if, like me, you already have broad shoulders and a large frame, why on earth would you want to ephasize that for? We're women. We're supposed to be the smaller, prettier, more delicate sex.

You know who should be wearing shoulder pads? MEN. But men won't wear anything that isn't comfortable. So women will wear uncomfortable stuff that makes them look more masculine, why?

Just some of the deep, ponderous thoughts I have while showering in the morning.

Tempête autour de l'utérus

Le jeudi 22 mai 2008
Agnès Gruda

Claudia Tucker avait très peur de son mari, un homme rude et abusif. Le jour où il a menacé de la quitter si jamais elle devait concevoir un troisième enfant, la jeune femme l’a pris au mot.
(Lire plus...)

À son huitième mois de grossesse, Claudia Tucker a craqué. Elle a pris une carabine et l’a pointée sur son abdomen. Puis elle a tiré.

Lorsqu’elle s’est présentée à l’hôpital, il était trop tard pour sauver le fœtus. Des policiers attendaient Claudia Tucker à la sortie de l’établissement avec, en main, un mandat d’arrêt pour meurtre. (...)

«Une fois qu’un gouvernement établit des droits spécifiques pour le fœtus, cela signifie inévitablement un recul des droits des femmes enceintes», dénonce Lynn Paltrow, directrice de la NAPW qui recense des dizaines de cas similaires. (...)

Le 5 mars, les députés à la Chambre des communes ont adopté en deuxième lecture un projet de loi «sur les enfants non encore nés victimes d’actes criminels».

Il s’agit d’un projet de loi privé dont l’adoption n’est pas acquise – mais comme le Parti libéral laisse ses députés voter selon leur conscience sur cette question, l’issue du prochain vote est imprévisible.

«Il y a du monde qui a dormi sur la switch pour que ce projet de loi se rende aussi loin!» s’exclame la juriste Louise Langevin, de l’Uuniversité Laval.

Féministes, syndicats, jeunes avocats et même l’Assemblée nationale du Québec sont unanimes : adopter le projet de loi C-484, c’est mettre un doigt dans un engrenage qui finira, inévitablement, par gruger le droit à l’avortement.

«Il ne faut pas que les femmes enceintes redeviennent des incubateurs de fœtus ! » s’insurge Patricia Larue, de l’Association pour la liberté de choix, dans un cri du cœur qui rappelle des slogans anciens...

«Mais je suis pro-choix, je veux que la femme enceinte qui le souhaite puisse mener sa grossesse à terme», rétorque Ken Epp, député albertain et «papa» du projet de loi. Il cite des cas où des agressions qui ont entraîné la mort d’un fœtus n’ont pas été suffisamment punies au Canada. «Dans les Maritimes, un homme qui a tué un fœtus en poignardant sa femme au ventre n’a eu que 15 ans», fait-il valoir.

Entre les «pro» et les «contre», quelques juristes sont perplexes. Oui, il se peut que Ken Epp ne dise pas tout sur les véritables objectifs de son projet de loi, reconnaissent-ils. Mais en même temps, celui-ci est libellé de manière à ne pas «déborder» sur le terrain de l’avortement et ne comporte donc aucune menace immédiate.

Mais même si le projet de loi C-484 avait une ceinture et des bretelles, une question se pose, selon Louise Langevin : à quel besoin social répond-il? N’y a-t-il pas d’autres moyens de protéger les femmes enceintes, sans traiter le fœtus comme un être à part?

«Suis-je alarmiste? se demande Mme Langevin. Peut-être. On verra dans 10 ans. Mais le mouvement anti-avortement a beaucoup de cordes à son arc, il faut le prendre au sérieux.»
Bon, bien sur on commence par une histoire à faire peur. Sauf que moi-même j'aurais eu le même réflexe que les policiers dans cette histoire. Mais c'est à ça que sert la cour. Pour essayer de connaître la vérité. Si la vérité c'est qu'elle a "craqué", elle peut plaider insanité temporaire, comme n'importe qui qui est accusé de meurtre. On ne donne pas plus d'indulgence à un homme qui "craque" sous la pression. Ah, mais je parle comme s'il s'agissait d'un meurtre. Bien sur qu'il s'agit d'un meurtre, puisque quelqu'un a été tué, mais légalement, aux États-Unis comme au Canada, il ne s'agit pas d'un meutre, mais d'une sorte d'avortement illégal. Si l'histoire se passait en Europe par contre, on aurait peut-être reconnu qu'il s'agissait bien du meutre d'un foetus, puisqu'on ne peut plus avorter après un certain temps de gestation? Est-ce dire qu'en Europe on reconnaîtrait que le foetus est une personne à part qui a des droits après tant de semaines de gestation? Et les feministes dans ces pays ne crient pas à la guerre?

Mais pourquoi diable est-elle restée avec son mari? Je crois que le VRAI problème à résoudre dans cette histoire n'est pas l'accès à l'avortement, ni les droits de la femme sur son utérus, le vrai problème ici est qu'une femme s'est trouvée incapable de quitter une personne violente.

«Une fois qu’un gouvernement établit des droits spécifiques pour le fœtus, cela signifie inévitablement un recul des droits des femmes enceintes»

Et on pourrait aussi dire qu'une fois qu'un gouvernement établit des droits spécifiques pour la femme, cela signifie inévitablement un recul des droit des foetus. De quoi ont-elles si peurs? Pourquoi veulent-elles avoir tous les droits pour elles-même? Nous vivons tous ensemble dans ce monde, hommes, femmes, enfants, foetus. Partageons. Nous vivons dans une société qui privilégie les droits des femmes au détriment des droits des autres. Les foetus ne sont pas les seules victimes, les hommes aussi. 50% des parents au Canada sont des hommes. Mais quand il s'agit des conflits de garde d'enfants, les femmes gagnent en très grande majorité. C'est à croire que nos hommes sont des monstres, ou bien il y a injustice. Mais ça, c'est une autre histoire.

N’y a-t-il pas d’autres moyens de protéger les femmes enceintes, sans traiter le fœtus comme un être à part?

"Sans traiter le foetus comme un être à part?" vous dites? Il est temps de se réveiller mes chères soeurs féministe cyniques, la majorité des femmes saines considèrent déjà que leur foetus est un être à part. Quand une femme est enceinte, elle se frotte la bedaine tendrement. Elle lui parle. Elle lui chante parfois. Ses proches lui donnent des becs, lui parlent aussi et la caressent. Si on voyait un homme parler à sa bedaine comme s'il s'agissait d'une autre personne on l'enfermerait. Pourtant on ne trouve rien de bizarre quand une femme enceinte le fait. Et quand elle n'est plus enceinte, elle ne lui parle plus, pas plus qu'elle parle à ses bras ni à ses pieds. Pourquoi? Parce qu'elle ne parle pas vraiment à sa bedaine mais à l'être à part qui vit temporairement dans sa bedaine. Elle sait que c'est un être à part. La société entière reconnaît que c'est un être à part. Franchement, sur quelle planète vous vivez?

«Suis-je alarmiste? se demande Mme Langevin. Peut-être. On verra dans 10 ans. Mais le mouvement anti-avortement a beaucoup de cordes à son arc, il faut le prendre au sérieux.»

DE BONNES NOUVELLES!!! Elles nous prennent au sérieux.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

UK decides to allow human-animal embryos to be used for research

The proposed laws, the first major review of embryo science in Britain for almost 20 years, have provoked stormy debate - pitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and a large number of lawmakers.

Brown has said he believes scientists seeking to use mixed animal-human embryos for stem cell research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are on a moral mission to improve - and save - millions of lives.

The process involves injecting an empty cow or rabbit egg with human DNA. A burst of electricity is then used to trick the egg into dividing regularly, so that it becomes a very early embryo, from which stem cells can be extracted. Scientists say the embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days, and are intended to address the shortage of human embryos available for stem cell research.

Read full story here.

Is it just me or does this sound like some freaky story right out of The Outer Limits? But no, it is all too true. Scientists continue to want to play God. Our Tower of Babel is about to fall apon us.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Why pro-choice activists fear my bill - Ken Epp

Citizen Special
Thursday, May 15, 2008

There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called "right" to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman's right to have her wanted baby protected in law.

But that is exactly where we have arrived in the debate surrounding my private member's Bill, C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.

In drafting this bill, I was very specific to my legal advisers that I wanted to inoculate this legislation against the abortion question and cases of harm caused by the pregnant woman. The legal drafters did this. C-484 applies only in the commission of an offence against the woman, and "for greater certainty" there is an explicit exclusion for consensual termination of pregnancy and acts or omissions by the pregnant woman. A constitutional expert from McGill University has given me a legal opinion attesting to the bill's constitutionality.

Yet claims that have no basis in fact continue to be levelled against C-484. A popular criticism is that supposedly similar laws in the United States are used to "punish" and "police" pregnant women. I have done an extensive analysis of the U.S. situation, and my report which refutes these alarmist and misleading claims is posted at: www.kenepp.com/admin/assets/USCASESE1.pdf.

Misrepresentations of Supreme Court rulings have also been used to discredit Bill C-484. When the Supreme Court has said that the fetus is not a "person," it has simply been acknowledging the law as it stands today. The Supreme Court has never said that the fetus ought not to be given some protection in criminal law. In fact, it has said that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the protection of the unborn child and that it is not up to the courts to figure out how to do that, it is up to the legislators.

Bill C-484 is an attempt to provide such protection in one very narrow circumstance -- when the unborn child is injured or killed when the mother is the victim of a crime.

So why do the opponents of C-484 resort to scare tactics and misrepresentations of the law to make their case? Why are they so afraid of a law that would punish a criminal for intentionally harming or killing an unborn baby who is wanted and loved by its mother?

The answer was revealed when an outspoken opponent of C-484 was quoted recently in the media: "If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion."

So they are opposing this bill because it recognizes some value in the unborn child (in that it can be the victim of a crime) which might lead to some Canadians changing their minds about abortion (which also deals with the unborn child).

But how is that a justifiable reason to oppose this bill? Is it right in a free and democratic society to try to control how and what people think? If people of their own free will decide to rethink their position on an important issue, why should we try to suppress that, especially if it means sacrificing in the process something which in and of itself is just and good and supported by a vast majority of Canadians?

Even if people do start questioning abortion, it does not necessarily follow that they will change their minds about whether a woman should have the freedom to choose that option. What it means is that pro-choice advocates will be in a position of having to justify abortion without relying on the illusion that the fetus is absolutely worthless. They will need to defend the view that, in spite of the unborn child being recognized as something of value, the woman's interests are paramount.

In fact, Chief Justice Brian Dickson, in the 1988 Supreme Court Morgentaler case dealing with consensual abortion, talked about the necessity of "balancing" the "interests" of the unborn child and the mother: "Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective. It follows that balancing these interests, with the lives and health of women a major factor, is clearly an important governmental objective."

If the Supreme Court has ruled that the interests of the child need to be taken into consideration in the context of consensual abortion, how much more so when the woman has not chosen abortion?

In the case of unborn victims of crime, there is no balancing act necessary because there is no "conflict of interests." The killing of the woman's unborn child is being forced upon her. Her "interests" and her child's "interests" are the same. And that is how the abortion debate differs from the issues raised with Bill C-484.

Pro-choice advocates haven't had to defend their position in terms of a "conflict of interests" of two entities, each with value, or defend the view that the woman's interests are paramount. But it is the only intellectually honest way of framing the abortion debate. The argument that the fetus is nothing more than an appendage of the woman or worthless tissue, or a "parasite" according to one activist, is scientifically and medically untenable.

And as far as the mother who wants the baby is concerned, it is callous and offensive. And as far as society is concerned, it sends the wrong message about the value of human life, regardless of whether we afford that human life personhood status or not.

The irony is that for years pro-lifers have been accused of trying to impose their views on others. The opponents of C-484 are now attempting to impose on women who want to be pregnant and want to love and protect their babies the view that the child in her womb is unworthy of protection in criminal law, unworthy of any amount of respect at all to the extent that a criminal can brutally attack that mother's child with a fist or a boot or a gun or a knife or a sword and face no consequences for killing what is so dear to her.

C-484 remedies this current injustice in such a way that maintains the choice of the woman who chooses to end her pregnancy of her own free will. To oppose this bill is to stand in defence of only those pregnant women who choose abortion. Let us not abandon those pregnant women who choose life for their babies.

Ken Epp is Conservative MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Canada Silent No More

Pro-Life Alert- PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR CONTACTS AND HAND THIS OUT TO MEDIA AT THE MARCH-THANKSFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 7, 2008

CANADA SILENT NO MORE is an organization of former abortion patients across Canada who know first hand all about what an abortion really is, and what it has done to our bodies, our minds and our pre-born children.

For years many of us have suffered in silence with the guilt, remorse, regret and deep sorrow of making the biggest mistake in our lives. We believed those who lied, when they said, "It's just a clump of tissue". We believed them when they said legal abortion is a "safe" procedure; another lie. Many of us were pressured or coerced into it. Tragically, some of us aborted the only child or children we would or could ever have-due to the physical damage abortion caused in our womb and cervix. Many of us have been traumatized by the abortion procedure called Post Abortion Syndrome, a traumatic stress disorder recognized by Dr. Vincent Rue, Dr. David Reardon, Dr. Philip Ney and others. Many studies confirm that induced abortion causes depression, suicides, pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies, (48 studies) www.afterabortion.org dysfunctional relationships, bonding problems with born children, Breast and Cervical Cancers, (28 studies-see www.abortionbreastcancer.com etc.

There is a growing movement in Canada and around the world to expose the lies of the abortion promoters and declare that abortion is a wrong, and not a right, that it hurt us, and killed our babies. We are collecting affidavit testimonies from other women hurt by abortion for possible lawsuits against abortion doctors for not giving informed consent and for the many injuries done to our bodies, and to our mental health.

We are supporting the March for Life in Ottawa May 8th and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and join our voices as victims of abortion in Canada. We declare that abortion is a wrong and not a right, it should be unthinkable.

Contact: Denise Mountenay
CANADA SILENT NO MORE
Founder/President
www.canadasilentnomore.com
107 Discovery Ave. Morinville, AB. T8R 1N1
780-939-5774