Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpgby Kelli
From the blogs:

  • Valerie Jane of 2 Seconds Faster mentions a FoxNews report on the recent screening of porn films on college campuses….


    At least 6 universities have recently screened a pornographic film in the name of education, though the plot of the movie holds no educational value. According to the report, the screenings “usually include discussions led by Planned Parenthood or professors on First Amendment rights and pornography.”
    Did you catch that? PP is involved in this ridiculous excuse for an education.
    Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council believes students have more than enough opportunity to access pornography off campus:

    I think it’s a stretch beyond the breaking point to suggest showing a porn film is a necessary part of the educational experience for students…
    I don’t think the schools should be facilitating it…. Now when it comes to free speech, if they want to have a debate, I think it’s perfectly fine to have a discussion. But showing the film is more geared toward titillation than education.

    Valerie notes PP’s possible motivation for being involved in promoting porn:

    STD diagnosis and “treatment” is 29% of their services and 96% of their clients. It’s a business, and without careless sexual behavior, they will be no longer needed.
    Why [does] an organization that claims to protect women want to help in the exploitation of women by promoting pornography? I’ll give you one guess. They couldn’t care less about women. All they are about is [money].

  • Tanya Zaleski at ProWomanProLife blogs about the difference between our generation and generations past in our acceptance of those with disabilities, and her conversation with “a wise woman”:

    [She] sat back in her chair…and stated… “You can go to the store and buy a fridge. For $100 more you can get a warranty. Why risk it? Get the warranty! But people view their children in the same way; like so many commodities.”

  • Stephen Drake at Not Dead Yet discusses 2 mo. old Kaylee Wallace, whose parents are waiting for her to die at Sick Children’s Hospital in Toronto. Their intent is to donate her heart to another terminally ill child. The first attempt to donate was thwarted when Kaylee stayed alert instead of falling asleep, when she ceases to breathe. We know the name for this condition, and it is treatable: sleep apnea. Kaylee’s other disorder, Joubert’s Syndrome, is not one of a necessarily terminal nature.
    There are too many unanswered questions involved in this case. Drake states:

    From where I sit, the hospital other professionals… have a lot of explaining to do. Here’s my starting list of questions I want answered:

  • How does this child’s disabilities differ from the majority of non-terminal children with the same condition?
  • Was the possibility of treating the apnea ever seriously considered?
  • Given the possibility of improvement of apnea over time, why is ventilator assistance being withdrawn?
  • Is this child really “dying” or is this a “quality of life” decision? Shouldn’t we try to be clear about which type of situation we’re talking about?
  • Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...