Thursday, November 24, 2011

Twins' death doubly wrong

The tragic death of twin babies in a botched operation at a Melbourne hospital is absolutely awful for everyone involved.

And it demonstrates everything that is wrong about abortion.

As reported in The HeraldSun, a couple was advised by doctors at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital to abort one of their twin boys because he had a congenital heart defect "that would require years of operations, if he survived at all". So they decided to abort one of the boys, whom they had already named.

I find that heartbreaking. I can't imagine making such a decision.

But it gets worse.

During the abortion operation, at which both parents were present, a mistake was made and, rather that the sick baby dying, his healthy brother was injected with the poisonous substance meant for his brother, and killed. The doctors then performed a caesaerian operation to terminate the sick baby, so both twins died.

The HeraldSun reports:

A friend of the woman said the family was struggling to cope with the fatal mistake.

"She went to the hospital with two babies and now she has none. And she had the heartache of giving birth to her sick baby. She's traumatised," she said.

The ultrasound clinician who identified the wrong baby was reportedly inconsolable.

Just horrific.

In the arguments about abortion I've participated in, the arguments usually go to the mother's rights, or some terrible edge case where the mother's life is threatened, or the baby is conceived through rape or incest. But here is a healthy mother with two boys who, without intervention, will be born alive. The mother's rights are not an issue, and this is no edge case since the twins were conceived in an apparently stable marriage and it's clear that the pregnancy was wanted.

The reason given for the termination is that one baby would, because of his illness, either die or have to have many operations to fix his heart.

I find it very hard not to be angry about this because it seems so selfish.

Why kill this baby?

Because he will suffer? Is that really a good reason? Would you kill your baby if you knew that one day he would suffer because of some sickness? No child would survive if that were the case.

Because his parents will suffer hardship? That really is selfish. Because he will cost his parents money? That doesn't sound so nice, does it?

What about this: "We decided to chuck out the dud one, but keep the good one".

No, that doesn't sound very nice at all does it? And yet that's what it comes down to. It seems that these parents were willing to kill one of their children so that they would not suffer hardship. Which seems to be the main reason for abortions. Not because a mother's life is threatened, but because a baby will bring hardship, or disrupt a lifestyle, or be inconvenient. I don't deny that raising children can be very hard, and that having very sick children is physically, emotionally and financially draining, but once upon a time it was considered a good thing to sacrifice yourself for your children. It might even be considered character-building.

What's remarkable about this tragedy is that, despite all the pro-choice rhetoric, people think it is a tragedy. In each of the news reports I read, each of the twins is described as being a 'boy', a 'brother', a 'baby', despite them not having that status as human in law.

The news reports the tragedy that a healthy baby boy died. But what about the sick twin? Doesn't he count? Why is he denied the opportunity to live when, through no fault of his own, he suffers a medical condition? Why is one boy denied rights, justice, life, and even humanity, while his healthy brother is given them? Why are people 'traumatised' by the death of a healthy boy and inconsolable, but not by the death of a sick boy? Doctors. Nurses. His parents.

But then thousands of healthy babies are killed like this every day. 80,000 each year in Australia alone. And apparently no-one is traumatised by that.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Fastest Firefox ever

What the ...? Firefox 5?

That must be the fastest full version upgrade ever.

I guess Mozilla got sick of Google upping its version number with every point update and joined in.

Doesn't look much different, apparently it's all under the hood. So hopefully, it's speedier too.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Fixing damaged goods

I commented on Hans Kristensen's Lies the church tells about sex: if you have sex outside of marriage you are damaged goods.

The post and the series has good intentions, but sorry Hans, this is not a lie.

All sex outside of marriage, like all sin, will damage us.

The great news is that, no matter what we've done, God will always forgive us when we ask for his forgiveness -- Jesus' blood washes us clean.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Pink rules!

When I told my little girls (aged 8 and 3) that there was a campaign to stop pink for girls there were howls of dismay. Noo!", "We love pink!", "Pink is the bestest colour for girls!"

I would have much preferred that our girls didn't wear pink. I'm not that fond of it as a colour and I thought other colours suited them much better. My favourite dress for our little girls was a smart navy-blue dress with a silver star on the front which I thought looked very nice. They didn't.

Given the choice they'd wear almost anything pink. Or with ribbons. Or pink with ribbons.

I gave up and let them be girls. Which is exactly the point.

As I see it, part of my job as a parent is to let our children make their own choices and to be confident with their decisions. My job is to make sure that those choices are safe, appropriate to their age and right, according to God, everything else is not important.

So if they want to wear pink, they can wear pink. If they want to dye their hair pink, and get pink tattoos, that's fine, as long as they love God and obey him.

Not saying I'd be entirely happy about the tattoos, but you have to get some perspective.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Lame 2.0

So it turns out I wasn't the only one that thought "iSnack 2.0" wasn't a good name for the new Vegemite. So many people thought it sucked that Kraft has now changed its mind.

“We have been overwhelmed by the passion for Vegemite and the new product. The new name has simply not resonated with Australians. Particularly the modern technical aspects associated with,’’

said Kraft spokesman Simon Talbot, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

You don't say.

Anyway it's back to the ol' drawing board to come up with a new name.

A lady at work suggested "Cheesymite" — maybe spelled "Cheesemite" but pronounced the same way — which I thought was pretty good.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009


At first I thought it was a joke, but no, Kraft really has decided to name the new kind of Vegemite "iSnack 2.0". Which is encouraging news in the war on drugs. Clearly the quality and quantity of cocaine available to advertising and media types is in decline. The downside is we get lame product names like "iSnack 2.0".

Lame lame lame lame lame.

It's hard to know whether this is some post-modern meta way of generating publicity (in which case it's bad news from the war on drugs) , or just a really, really bad idea.

There are so many things wrong with the name it's hard to know where to start, but let me try with just a few.

  1. There's no "1.0"
  2. After 13 years if iStuff, Apple is about the only company that can get away with calling a product iAnything
  3. iAnything and "2.0" are both technological terms, about the only thing technological about Vegemite is the jar lid

Still, I suppose it's better than Parwill, and look how that turned out.