Wonderful Life

“One human life is as precious as a million lives, for each is infinite in value.” - Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits.

“We’re all human, aren’t we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving.” – J.K. Rowling, author.

"Society professes reverence for human life. We weep for those who die, pray and work for those whose lives are in jeopardy. For years I have labored with other doctors here and abroad, struggling to prolong life. It is impossible to describe the grief a physician feels when the life of a patient is lost. Can anyone imagine how we feel when life is destroyed at its roots, as though it were a thing of naught?" - Russell M. Nelson, former surgeon and medical researcher.

"In times past we have looked upon a person who saves another human life as a great hero; yet now we have come to a time when the taking of an unborn human life for non-medical reasons has become tolerated, made legal, and accepted in many countries of the world. But making it legal to destroy newly conceived life will never make it right. It is consummately wrong." - James E. Faust, former attorney.

"Some say, as did the Supreme Court of the United States, that it is only a theory that human life is present from conception. This is contrary to insurmountable medical evidence."  - James E. Faust.

"Approximately twenty-two days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At twenty-six days the circulation of blood begins." - Russell M. Nelson.

“I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths. There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy.” - Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, former director of the first and largest abortion clinic in the western world.

"If one is to be deprived of life because of potential for developing physical problems, consistency would dictate that those who already have such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. Continuing, then, those who are either infirm, incompetent, or inconvenient should be eliminated by those in power. Such irreverence for life is unthinkable! - Russell M. Nelson.

"Some justify abortions because the unborn may have been exposed to drugs or disease and may have birth defects. Where in all the world is the physically or mentally perfect man or woman? Is life not worth living unless it is free of handicaps? Experience in working with handicapped children would suggest that human nature frequently rises above its impediments." - James E. Faust.

“Every argument that can be made for aborting a fetus can also be made for killing the same fetus once it is born,” -  Professor R. Paul Ramsey of Princeton University.

“An abortion is never commonplace, for the world holds no heartbreak like the death of innocence. Whenever and wherever it occurs, we all suffer another loss from that little which sustains us and holds us together. It is the degradation of humanity. It is fulness emptied, innocence defiled, song unfinished, beauty discarded, hope unsprung." - Dr. Henry G. Armitage, Jr.

"The great medical profession, for which I have such great respect, that for centuries has been committed to the preservation of life under the cardinal principles of treatment—“do no harm” and “protect life”—now finds itself destroying almost a million unborn children a year in the United States alone. Each of these, because of tiny chromosomal differences, would have been different from any other person born in the world. How many with special gifts like unto Moses, Leonardo da Vinci, and Abraham Lincoln might have been among them?" - James E. Faust.

"Consider [this] individual weighing the consequences of her pregnancy. She was beyond the normal age for bearing children. She announced to her doctor that her husband was an alcoholic with a syphilitic infection. One of her children had been born dead. Another child was blind. Another had tuberculosis. Her family had a history of deafness. Finally she confessed that she was living in abject poverty. If this true historical situation were posed today, many would recommend abortion. The child born from that pregnancy became the renowned composer Ludwig van Beethoven." - Russell M. Nelson.

"Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus.  These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero." - Anon. (from a letter received by Dallin H. Oaks, former US Supreme Court Justice.)

"Why destroy a life that could bring such joy to others?" - Russell M. Nelson.

"One of the most evil myths of our day is that a woman who has joined hands with God in creation can destroy that creation because she claims the right to control her own body. Since the life within her is not her own, how can she justify its termination?" - James E. Faust.

"The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality." - Russell M. Nelson.

“If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." - John Calvin.

 "Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices.

   To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action.

   So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action" - Russell M. Nelson.

“This is one of the most despicable of all sins—to destroy an unborn child to save one from embarrassment or to save one’s face or comfort.” - Spencer W. Kimball.

"More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences." - Dallin H. Oaks, former US Supreme Court Justice.

“Abortion itself is a potential source of psychiatric illness and a basis for mental breakdown. For this reason there should be no psychiatric grounds for abortion." - Dr. Victor Calef.

"We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like 'pro-choice' wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise." - Dallin H. Oaks.

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” – Ronald Reagan, former US president.

The original - uncut

I recently had another letter to the editor published in my local newspaper back home, where I voiced some concerns on recently proposed legislation.  I may seem like a quiet person with not much to say, but get me on the right topic and I've got plenty.  This is one of those topics.  

I've sent in a couple of other letters before which were also published, on the topics of prostitution, and legalising "soft" drugs.  I'm basically always writing about politics and law.

Well in reading the version of this most recent letter that was printed in the paper, I found  that it was edited a fair bit.  So here is my original version - uncut!

So our premier, Lara Giddings, has pledged Tasmanian tax-payers’ money to a fight to legalise same-sex marriage in Tasmania.  What this means is redefining the definition of marriage from what it currently and legally is to include same sex couples.

The noticeable fly in the ointment here is that The Australian Marriage Act 1961 clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only.  This is the Australian Federal Law. 

This means that despite our premier’s fight to change this definition in Tasmania, such marriages will still not be recognised according to Australian Federal law, as they will contradict what is written in the Marriage Act, under the Australian Constitution.

As some people may not be aware, in Tasmania there is already a legal provision for same-sex couples, in that they can register their relationship with Births, Deaths, and Marriages and receive a Deed of Relationship certificate.  (I’m sure no one would object to them holding a ceremony and celebration at this time either.)  This document functions much the same as a marriage certificate in proving and allowing rights in areas such as wills, property division, guardianship, health care, statutory compensation schemes, state taxes, fees and licences, and state superannuation and pension schemes.  It even gives them the legal provision to change their name, as does a marriage certificate.

So what rights exactly does Lara Giddings need to fight for here, with money that is much needed elsewhere? 

If she is serious about going all the way, this will lead to an inevitable (and very expensive) High Court battle to essentially separate Tasmania’s marriage laws from this definition under the Australian Constitution. 

Now, I know we like to joke about Tasmania being its own country sometimes, but do we really want to start separating ourselves from the protection of the Constitution? 

If Lara Giddings is successful in such a separation, where will that leave Tasmania?  Probably drifting down Bass Strait without a paddle…

Rising From The Smoke

This morning I was outside the hotel (thanks to James, who kindly woke me when my alarm didn't go off...oops), attempting to get a view of the rare event of a solar eclipse.  So were a lot of the hotel staff.  We had fun trying to somehow get a glimpse of it, despite being completely unprepared (ironically I found out afterwards via tv that it would have been as simple as using a Ritz cracker and piece of white cardboard).  Fun, that is, until after about 15 minutes of breathing in the fumes of cigarette after cigarette, I started to get slightly irate.  Why did I have to breathe in toxic fumes whilst beholding an amazing natural phenomena?  I managed to find another spot nearby free of cigarette smoke, but was already starting to harbour ill-feelings towards this aspect of Japanese culture.   

Back in my hotel room a little while later, I was trying to go about my day, but the cigarette fumes started drifting in.  I tried to endure it as best as I could, like I had already been doing for so long, but finally, I could not take it any longer.  I had already spent two weeks suffering this olfactory invasion of having to breathe in those awful toxic fumes against my will.  TWO.  WHOLE.  WEEKS.  I'd had enough.  Something snapped.  I was ready to go "postal".  I decided I needed to get far, far away from this smell.  But first, I would ask the hotel staff if this room was, in fact, in a smoking section, and can I change rooms.  Well to my horror and relief, the answer was yes, and yes (remind me to have stern words with my employer for booking us into the smoking section!). Although the second one could have been a no, but luckily something was free.  So I gladly took the opportunity, packed up all my stuff that I had spread out over my room the last two weeks, and moved it all up to the 10th floor.  And here I happily am, sipping my peach "latte", and not breathing in evil fumes.

Now, I know what you're thinking.  I come from Australia.  There is definitely no lack of cigarette smoke there.  My friends can attest to many a great moment being ruined in similar manner, such as the incident of February 2012, Watching the Regatta Fireworks from Montagu Bay (they were even smoking right next to their own kids!).  It bugs me that in some areas, especially in the city, I can't sit outside and enjoy the sun whilst eating my lunch, without being afflicted by that awful smell thanks to someone lighting up.  And don't get me started on people who are in front of me on the walk to work who spill a steady stream of fumes from that cigarette in their ever-swinging hand.  Yet I feel happily satisfied that at least smoking inside public buildings is completely illegal.  I can at least find refuge somewhere.  

In Japan things are a little different.  Generally speaking, smoking on the streets is not allowed.  So most of the time I can walk about smoke free.  I guess that's something to be grateful for.  But smoking inside of buildings, such as hotels, restaurants and cafes, is legal and common.  That's right, in your local McDonald's there will be people smoking inside.  Sure, there are "smoking" and "non-smoking" areas or floors, but I think the western world caught on long ago that such an arrangement really doesn't improve much.  So in my current state of living in a hotel and having to eat out quite regularly, I am constantly exposed to passive smoking.

I have a lot of great friends who are smokers.  I am not at all implying that they are bad people.  I also have nothing against the freedom of choice they have in choosing such a life-style.  The problem with smoking, however, is that it's really hard to do without affecting a lot of people.  Even if you go outside, have your smoke, then come back inside and sit next to me, I can smell that awful odour and want to cover my nose.  Seriously, I can be outside with no one around me, and suddenly I catch a whiff of that awful stuff.   I quickly turn around, scanning the area until 10-15 metres away I spot the culprit and mutter a raspy "Why, it's youuuuu..." and shake my fist in anger.  

Currently the Australian government is taking a lot of measures to discourage people from smoking, such as proposed plain packaging laws.  Many argue that this will not do much to deter smokers (makes you wonder why the tobacco companies are so upset about it then?).  The other day I read an article with a pretty radical and extreme proposal - ban smoking completely for anyone born after the year 2000.  

Australia's troubled health system alone would benefit hugely from such a ban - and I'd be bold enough to say that no one would be negatively affected by this complete phase-out of smoking.  Except, of course, for the share-holders of the tobacco companies raking in huge profits from other peoples' suffering world-wide.  Remind me to cry a river for you later.

Not Happy Bob

I must say I was very shocked and outraged to hear via the ABC news story Australia's recently assigned Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, said that we have lost the war on drugs and should legalise some substances.  Say, WHAT??!!  

The argument is that chasing after those using the "softer" drugs, such as marijuana, is a waste of police resources and so we should make them legal.  Um, yeah, that sounds logical...NOT!  I understand there are limited police resources, and the need to prioritise.  That's fine.  Prioritise away!  But to make them legal?  

You could easily use the same argument to say, given all the recent stories of multiple shootings occurring across Sydney within just a few weeks, that Sydney has lost the war on firearms and should make them legal.  After all, that'll solve the problem right?  There's too many shootings for us to go around arresting everyone involved, so let's just say that shooting people is fine and give out guns like candy?  Hmm, I think not!  I think it is clear to everyone (or at least Australians) that this is not a good thing for our society and guns should remain illegal.  The same principle applies with drugs.

For a society and government that is trying to deal with the negative effects of tobacco use on individuals and the health system as a whole, not to mention all the alcohol-related violence also clogging up the emergency departments in our hospitals, legalising another damaging substance, which has links with the development of schizophrenia and psychosis, is the wrong way to go and will only create an even greater stress on the troubled health system.  Not to mention the lives it will negatively impact - not just individuals, but also their families and associates.  And what about our youth?  Just another drug to look forward to once you turn 18, they will line up in droves to try it - legally!

I actually did some internet research recently on methamphetamines - highly addictive with some serious side-effects - and was shocked and disappointed at the lack of literature there to really highlight the dangers and stress that using this is not only illegal, but will negatively impact your life and others.  The government-supported sites seemed to say "well we all know you'll be trying this drug anyway, but just so you can't say we didn't warn you, here's a few things to consider first."  Hmm when I was in school we were taught it was NOT GOOD! And DON'T DO IT!  Pretty effective for me!  Given that these substances are currently illegal (and for good reason) I really think this should be emphasised.

So Bob Carr, I do not support the "effective decriminalisation" of harmful and addictive drugs!  

I do (for once) support Prime Minister Julia Gillard who said that she does not support it either!  Well done, Julia, you finally got something right.  Even though you're the reason Bob Carr is our foreign minister...but we'll overlook that for now.  I'll even finish with your quote:

"We want to keep supporting people who need our help to break out of a cycle of addiction and we need to keep policing so that we are tackling those that are seeking to make a profit out of what really is a trade in incredible misery."

If I were Mr Speaker, I'd have a few things to say.

One day this week I was home from work early, decided to rest on the couch and watch some tv and came across Australian parliament Question Time.  I would normally go to great lengths to avoid watching this, but I decided that as a federal government employee and an Australian citizen I should probably take a little more interest in the workings of parliament in this country.  And so, despite cringing even from the very beginning, I watched it.  

While I still don't know a lot about parliament, I learnt a little bit about the running of question time, including the role of Mr Speaker.    Thank goodness there is a Mr Speaker or parliament would turn into a group brawl.  His job is to decide who is speaking when and for how long.  He can interrupt the politicians, tell them to sit back down, or to keep their remarks relevant to the question.  A bit like a judge in a court case perhaps.

The trouble is, the parliament members do a terrible job of adhering to his instructions.  The day I watched they seemed to do okay towards the start, with even the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, obliging when she was told to stop talking and take her seat.  But they seemed to get worse and worse, even continuing to talk (rather loudly, might I add) over Mr Speaker, who was asking them to stop speaking, even after repeated attempts.  


This display of very childish behaviour led me to think about what improvements could be made in parliament question time, and what I would love to do if I were Mr Speaker (or Ms Speaker?).  Here's a few ideas I thought of:


1.  I would tell the members of parliament to stop shouting at me, as that is very disrespectful and rude.  When does that happen, you ask?  Often members of parliament direct their remarks to Mr Speaker, even though they are really talking to and looking at a member of the opposing party, and being quite antagonistic in their remarks some members even resort to shouting instead of speaking.  So if they kept using my title in such a tone of voice I would abruptly remind them that I am not deaf and I do not appreciate their shouting.


2.  I would install a mute button for the speakers' microphones and volume control, so that instead of having to speak over the member to ask them to stop (which they often ignore whilst they keep on shouting), I can mute their mic, and up the volume on mine to say in a booming voice "The Honourable <insert name/title> will cease speaking!"


3.  I would introduce the 3-level behaviour control system.  You know the one - step 1 is the warning, step 2 is a direct request to stop the behaviour, step 3 is time out for the rest of the session.  As I was watching, so many parliament members were being horribly disrespectful to Mr Speaker in continually ignoring his directions and warnings.  I really think if more discipline was enforced, like it is in schools, we would have more order and productivity in question time.  


I noticed that Mr Speaker already acted like a teacher at times, such as trying to give directions amongst shouting between several members of parliament at once, and instead glaring at them and waiting for them to listen before continuing.  


Seriously.  A room full of yelling, shouting adults, not adhering to order, but instead choosing to do lots of "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!!" type yelling at each other.  


Wow, such dignified professionals.  I'm glad we're paying them so much.