Is it important to find your parents?

A winning formula

Dr Manny writes:

Over the years, as sperm donation has increasingly become a public matter, more of the children born from donor sperm are attempting to find their biological fathers.

As people see this movie over the Thanksgiving holiday, I think that it will open up some broader questions about how we can better regulate this industry. I think the film should also raise discussions about just how much information should be available to children born from donors in order for them to better explore their own identity. I think everybody wants to know about their backgrounds, and for some people, this information might make them feel more whole and create a more stable sense of identity.

Is it important to find your biological parents? Is your family tree an artificial construct, potentially filled with pairs of fathers and mothers that are irrelevant to your genetic history? This will increasingly become the case, and even with a certain amount of social conditioning to dismiss a genetic connection to your "roots", I suspect most people deep down would like to know more about their genetic history. But what also about the crazy potential that a man can father hundreds of children? Is this a curse or a blessing? Interesting times.

533 children from one father

Female Roast Busters

The best decisions are made after a good nights sleep

OK the heading is somewhat misleading, but now that you are here, you may as well read the post.  It isn't that long.

I saw a billboard advertisement that was supposed to be funny. Girl takes boy to a hotel room (the point of the advertisement), barely knows his name, and so uses a sticky note to remember in the morning.

We sow what we reap.

By that, I don't mean I blame the women.  I mean that sending mixed messages such as these confuses people and there are no clear boundaries being set on what is moral, and healthy.  The outcome of such promiscuity are many cases of hurt and emotional pain.  Furthermore, the Chads of this world think consent was valid even when the women can't remember his name.  If it is, that's a pretty low bar to set for future interactions.

Dunne sounds more than a little desperate over his warnings over the Conservatives

I could not believe what I read in the paper today. Looks like Peter Dunne is feeling very threatened by Colin Craig and his Conservative Party:

United Future leader Peter Dunne is warning John Key he will have a tiger by the tail if he throws his weight behind the Conservatives.

Dunne is famous for his dramatic rise in popularity in the 2002 election thanks to his popularity with TV's "worm", which turned his party from a one-man band to an eight-strong caucus.

But he has claimed that some of the Christian MPs who rode his coat-tails into Parliament that year believed it was God, not him, who turned the worm.

"The explanation I got was I was God's vessel. It was nothing to do with me. I didn't move the worm . . . that was all God's great plan and he used me and the worm debate to achieve the outcome."

Many of the MPs whom Dunne took with him into Parliament that year were promoted by Christian backers, and he has since severed contact with them.

One of them, Larry Baldock, struck out to form his own party before signing up with Colin Craig and standing at No 3 on the Conservative Party list last election.

Oh my goodness, they're Christian and they believe Christian things. Quick, bring out the garlic! Oh no, wait, that's for vampires ...

Craig says his party is socially conservative, but he rejects the Christian-party label and says he has not been to church for years, despite being a devout Christian.

Speaking as a Catholic, I find that position of Craig stressing that he hasn't been to church for years just more than a little strange. But, apparently Protestants can do that as they can just start their own church and there's no Sunday obligation or idea of mortal sin if church is missed. Anyway ...

Dunne said National should be wary of throwing the Conservatives a lifeline seat to ensure they got into Parliament.

Craig and his party were an unknown quantity and Key could have cause to regret it.

Many of those attracted to the Conservatives were those who had previously latched on to UnitedFuture. "If you strike too close a relationship with them in advance . . . when you don't entirely know what it is you're buying, you become hostage to the crazy mad statements."

Yep, totally stark raving bonkers ... because they are Christian. Dunne's just sounding more that a little desperate here.

Related link: Beware Craig's crazies, warns Dunne ~ Stuff

Exorcism performed in Illinois after same-sex "marriage" bill signed

Bishop Paprocki in Illinois is brave man:

In front of 500 followers, Paprocki asked God to “deliver us from evil” caused by same sex marriage.

“I exorcise you, every unclean spirit, every power of darkness, every incursion of the infernal enemy, every diabolical legion, cohort, and faction, in the name and power of our Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Be uprooted and put to flight from the Church of God from souls created in the image of God and redeemed by the precious blood of the divine lamb.

“Dare no more, oh cunning serpent, to deceive the human race, to persecute the church of God, to shake the chosen of God and sift them like wheat.”

“Be gone Satan, father of lies, enemy of human salvation,” Paprocki said at the conclusion of the exorcism. “Give way to Christ, in whom you found no trace of your works. Give way to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church, which Christ himself won by his blood.”

If only one had been performed in New Zealand by our Bishops, or even one of them.

Related link: Bp. Paprocki performs exorcism after Illinois governor signs same-sex “marriage” bill

Problems with homosexuality in the priesthood in Scotland

I'm watching this story with interest. From Congregation unite in protest at suspension of parish priest:

Only a handful of parishioners remained yesterday to take mass at St John Ogilvie's Church in High Blantyre with Archdiocese of Motherwell acting Bishop Joseph Toal after Father Matthew Despard was removed from his ministry the night before.

Before they went into church, people signed a petition calling for the reinstatement of Father Despard, suspended for writing a controversial memoir that claimed there is a culture of homosexual bullying in the Catholic Church.

Father Matthew Despard suspended for writing a book about homosexual bullying in the Church

Fr. Despard was suspended for writing Priesthood in Crisis, available on Amazon in Kindle format. I bought it yesterday morning and am nearly halfway through.  So far I've read about the incident that occurred that prompted him to write the notes that lead to the book, his experiences in the seminary which included a number of heterosexual men either being forced out of priestly training, or leaving because they couldn't take it anymore.  It reminded me of what Fr. Z said this year (sorry, can't find the post) that the homosexuals in the seminary in his day made his life hell. Not word for word, exactly, but the meaning was similar.

What I find interesting, is the coincidence of the date of publication of the Kindle book and the outing of Scotland's only Cardinal, Keith O'Brien.  It seems a lot happened in a short space of time.  Before Pope Benedict resigned,  O'Brien was accused by three priests and a former priest of inappropriate relationships with them, then it became public after the resignation.  Within days of Pope Francis' election, Fr Despard's book was published to Kindle.  It was all on in Scotland, it seemed. 

However, even though Keith O'Brien is now is some unknown monastery where he'd been ordered into by Pope Francis, Fr. Despard is still able to be threatened with the loss of his priesthood because of what he has revealed in his book.  Meanwhile, the latest on Cardinal O'Brien was that before he was ordered into a monastery,  he blocked a planned independent inquiry into historic sex abuse in Scotland. After reading some of Fr. Despard's book, I beginning to understand the power being wielded by those who stand to lose a lot if what is written is to be believed, and I see no reason to disbelieve it given the other reading I have done.

I was alerted to this story by a post written by Edward Peters, on our sidebar: The Scottish Controversy. As an aside, the blog listing , very strangely, disappeared from our sidebar between my reading of this story and my writing of this post. I added it back yesterday, and you will see it listed under Catholic Blogs, with the title In the Light of the Law. I don't know quite what to make of this disappearance, especially since there is no record of it occurring in StatCounter.

Related links: Congregation unite in protest at suspension of parish priest ~ ~ Herald Scotland
With the Pope against homo-heresy ~ LifeSiteNews

Small plastic babies are offensive and disturbing

I'm just listening to the radio where Tim Fookes compares giving plastic baby toys to children with watching a man getting run over on TV.

When did unborn human babies become offensive?

In the NZ Herald, the current controversy is explained:

Parents are outraged after an anti-abortion stall gave their children plastic foetuses at an A and P show.

On Thursday, anti-abortion groups teamed up to exhibit at the the Canterbury A and P Show on a Voice for Life and ProLife stall.

Amber Murdoch said her son, 11, arrived home on Thursday with a model foetus after a school outing.

"I was shown it at 6 o'clock at night when I got home from work," Murdoch said.

"It led to me having a really uncomfortable conversation when I had to explain to him he wasn't actually going to be allowed to play with this thing, and having to explain what abortion was all about."

Murdoch said her son also received a leaflet written for women who were pregnant. Murdoch said she would ask Canterbury A&P Association to investigate the stall and would lodge a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority.

Avril Thresh said she saw young boys running around with the foetuses.

"Regardless of whether you support their beliefs or not, we don't feel it's an appropriate platform for them to be spreading their message."

At least the kids weren't handed small plastic body parts, simulating how abortion rips apart babies, in a plastic bag filled with red goo. Now that I could see would be distressing, but a small plastic baby? You've got to be kidding.

It's as if people are far more comfortable with assuming that preganacies don't actually involve babies, that they are someone magicked into existence at birth. Do these people tell their children that the stork brought them and they were found in the cabbage patch?  Is the reality that every person was once an unborn baby just too much for them?  It just boggles the mind.

From NewsTalkZB, more of an explanation:

But Voice for Life President Bernard Moran says the dolls are prizes in a game used to educate people about foetal development.

"We don't give them away. Only if you win the competition.

"We don't hand them out as an anti-abortion thing. They represent what a little baby looks like."

Bernard Moran is surprised by the complaints and says parents usually like the dolls.

"Parents are quite delighted. They show the kids the little babies, and they say 'look, this is what you looked like at 10 or 11 weeks.'

"This is the first time we've actually had complaints."

I wonder if the woman who complained has had an abortion herself and that's why she found the dolls offensive, as the reaction of most parents above seems far more normal to me.

Related links: Anti-abortionists give plastic foetuses to kids ~ NZ Herald
Parents outraged by plastic foetus handouts ~ NewsTalkZB

On keeping your legs closed and Christian morality in NZ society

I have been doing a lot of listening lately, and yesterday I listened to Tim Fookes' NewsTalkZB Morning programme as people phoned in to give their opinion of that infamous remark made by a defense lawyer on the lines of, if she didn't want sex, she should have kept her legs closed.

Tim Fookes was one of those who was incredibly offended by the inference that this is all women have to do to prevent getting raped, and even apologised on behalf of all men. Good on him, I thought. A number of men phoned in and agreed that the sentiment was disgusting and offensive.

Then the lawyer in question (Keith Jefferies) phoned in and explained the statement was in his closing arguments and that he didn't believe his client had actually raped the woman, and that the sex was consensual, therefore to prevent consensual sex, all she had to do is keep her legs closed. Dear Tim just didn't get it.

Another lawyer phoned in and explained it in more detail to Tim and he still didn't get it.

At this point my mind started to process this apparent obtuseness on Tim's part, and it occurred to me that conservatism runs deep in many NZ males, a conservatism that has it's roots in Christian morality and patriarchy, no matter how liberal these men might be in other areas that have been worked on more in popular culture. I find this really fascinating.

Christian morality basically says that men have no business having sex with women that they are not married to. Marriage is the price of sex - no marriage, no sex. So, if a woman says she did not consent and the man is not married to her, then it is automatically assumed by some (who don't even believe that they subscribe to Christian morality at all) that the man must be a rapist.

Liberals go on an on and on about consent, but consent is one of those airy fairy things that could be assumed by no resistance. Except, that's not what feminists want. Here's an example from Clementine Ford from her opinion piece on the keeping your legs closed comment from the defence lawyer:

Sexual consent does not begin and end with securing a 'yes', but is an ongoing negotiation that must involve respect between all parties regardless of how that sex looks on the surface. Bodily integrity is paramount; it isn't something whose limits can be determined by a collection of individuals still grappling with confusion over their own relationships to sexuality. If we want to change the way sex is used to control and undermine other people, we have to first understand how we use it to control and undermine ourselves.

Clementine wants "an ongoing negotiation" before consent is assumed. Isn't that what engagements are for?

It seems to me that many people in New Zealand are operating from a Christian moral started point, but then messing it up along the way. If women can have sex outside of marriage where-ever and when-ever they want, then as the lawyer says, if they don't want sex they should keep their legs closed, or not put themselves in situations where consent is assumed and the negotiation associated with marriage is not entered into. However, if women want the negotiation and everything that comes with it, then they need to let go of the idea of sex when ever they feel like it with whomever, because such a scenario assumes consent if they put themselves in a situation where sex is likely, and leads to statements such as, she should have kept her legs closed.

This is of course very different from Islamic societies where leading men is astray is always the woman's fault. It's like men in those societies are assumed to have no self control and are never at fault if a woman happens to inspire them to have sex with her, whether she intends to or not. At least the Tim Fookes' position and all of those who agree with him believe that men should be far more responsible with women that they have sex with.

So, while I can see where the lawyers were coming from in regards to their defence of the unfortunate statement made by Keith Jefferies on closed legs, I am heartened by the underlying conservatism that exists in many New Zealand men as typified by Tim Fookes, who would most likely be surprised that I considered him to be conservative and have an underlying Christian morality.

Cunliffe pushes further on gender equality

Labour Party Leader, David Cunliffe has made huge strides in the Labour Party, pushing for 50-50 gender equality to the amazement and delight of many who see gender equality as essential in a balanced society.

Insiders say that gender equality in the Labour Party is still not enough, though. They have hinted that Cunliffe has set his sights on a new target - something radical in this day and age, designed to shake society to its foundations and question why we ever thought it acceptable to support gender imbalance at all:

Gender equality in marriage and families.

(Satire)

The Progressives who are awakening to Conservatism

Society is to blame - time to get outraged by the message

The Roast Busters story has fired up many sleepy liberal and progressive types that don't yet realise it, but they are waking up to conservative values.

For example, the letters to the editor and talk back radio linked the story in the same week about the government providing free condoms to 12 and 13 year old's even as others are crying "what went wrong?"

Sean Plunket, in today's DomPost editorial hoped to write something that would make a difference, and generate a change of culture, attitude and responsibility in NZ Male society.  Ironically, his article starts with something along the lines of "I don't want to talk about Len Brown and his adultery, I want to talk about something more important."  He failed to see the connection between Len Brown, in a position of power and influence, being defended by liberals that his "private morality" is of no concern to us.   With that logic, the private morality of these young men is of no concern to us, unless they make it public?  Can you start to see how weak that argument becomes?

The defense of Len Brown's affair is perhaps just as much a symptom as a piece of the puzzle, but it's going to take these urban progressives a little more time to start to connect the dots.

Chris Trotter's column yesterday was along the same vein - "oh, where has society gone wrong?". Well, he could start with reading this blog - we've been pointing it out for years. The progressive liberal experiment is failing and what has been sown is being reaped.

One "gotcha" I noticed in his article was when Chris Trotter declared the school sex education curriculum was a huge failure!  I don't think he realised just how significant his pronouncement actually is. The school sex education curriculum has indeed been a failure because it avoids making moral and value based judgments, and with "initiatives" such as free condoms, effectively does the reverse.  So the answer is not "more of the same, earlier and younger" which is probably going to be the first response to the issue.

 The logic that children are going to "do it anyway" makes me wonder why they don't hand out a case of beer, a fast car and a rubber power pole.  Perhaps a baseball bat, a balaclava and a guide to effective robberies? I digress.

There's some more bad news to digest for the liberal progressives though if they seek to repair this situation. They simply cannot declare that families need to play their part, and leave it at that. It's not that simple. "The family" as a fundamental building block of society was once based on the "til death do us part" institution of marriage. It isn't any more. Less marriages, more children born out of wedlock, evolving definitions of "the family", both parents needing to work to pay the bills, an increase in outsourcing children's early childhood education, the internet delivering porn and violence unfiltered by positive formative life experience - it's just not that simple anymore.

The good news is that many parents are waking up to Conservativism. They've noticed something is very wrong when their daughters can be raped, the culprits brag about their exploits seemingly oblivious to the harm they have done and the police are "powerless", and the government is on the sidelines thinking it is OK, providing a free condom was used.


Start connecting the dots folks, and we'll begin to see some real discussion and hopefully, some real change.

The Bogeyman cometh

"Many of the ills of the modern world — starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease — are likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts."

There you have it folks. You think war is bad? It's worse under CLIMATE CHANGE. You think poverty is bad? Just wait until you experience the type of poverty brought about by CLIMATE CHANGE.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue a report next March...

[Link for the brave]

Surely, these are not wild speculations? They used the words "international", "scientific" and "leaked" all in the same sentence! You think the Nobel Peace Prize-winning IPCC's advice smacks of realism and common sense because it is Nobel peace prize quality reliability?

Then let me introduce you to Barack Obama, another Nobel Peace Prize winner who, since his Peace Prize was awarded, hasn't managed to keep his promise about closing down Gitmo, has managed to preside over a level of spying that would have Democrats insisting Republicans were thrown in prison over, and sees nothing wrong with remote-controlled drones killing civilians in the name of Peace. To be fair, this is only what Obama does in his public life. Len Brown has taught us that what you do in your Public Life has no bearing on the morality you abide by in your private life, and vice-versa. So when Obama orders a bombing, you have to understand it's just business and when he goes home he's just a regular Dad. Just like Len Brown, only in reverse. Len is moral when raising taxes and debating policy, and when he heads off to the hotel room, or the back of the council chambers or wherever, then his private morality is of no concern to us.

Which is why Obama, the man, surely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize as much as Obama the President doesn't. And please don't complain about any of this - anything you say will only be made worse by CLIMATE CHANGE.

Radical Democracy

Labour's little red book might be modernised

The Labour Party are keen to get citizens up against the wall and loving the revolution. Some of their policy proposals are designed to encourage people to vote. Possibly for any other party but them.

I don't have a problem with parties having policies to attract their voters, but I do wonder if the policies are consistent with their constant references to democracy and participation. For example, look at these policies and see if you can spot that subtle hint of "Nanny" we saw in the Labour Government of 1999 to 2008.

• Maori language lessons in schools made compulsory
• Teachers forced to learn te reo
• Privatised state assets renationalised (theft by legislation) with compensation based on "proven need"
• The Government's roads of national significance project dumped in order to force people towards public transport
• The progressive prohibition of alcohol (banning smoking is already considered a fait accompli
• New Zealand becoming a republic (let's not have a debate about this)

But the coup de grace goes to another policy in their list:

Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all schoolchildren.

Democracy? Ho ho ho. Mandatory of course, just to teach the kids a very clear lesson on what Labour thinks of democracy.


Democracy, Labour Style