The Surgery.

This is not the sort of blog post that I had imagined having to write; at least, perhaps until the very, very distant future. Be that as it may, not being one who likes beating around the bus, as they say, I hope to get straight to the point.

It was recently discovered that I had prostate cancer. Fortunately, the cancer was found early enough where a successful outcome is expected.

After reviewing my options with a urologist, I decided that a radical prostatectomy was preferable to any sort of radiation treatment. So, this past Wednesday, I was admitted into the hospital for the surgery.

The urologist is optimistic. Everything went well and the prognosis is good.

I'll be off from work for quite some time. Before the surgery, I expected to be able to write more than usual; that might happen, but days after the surgery, it is difficult for me to sit at a PC for any length of time. I've never been comfortable using a laptop, so that's not an option for me.

I feel reasonably well, under the circumstances. It's been a week since the surgery and I feel like, while I won't be doing any "heavy lifting" any time soon, I should be able to write more in the coming days.

Of course, I'm thanking everyone in advance for any future prayers.

3 1/2 Time-Outs Tuesday - the Incomplete Segment.

At the risk of being accused of stating the obvious, I admit I haven't done much in the way of blogging of late. Part of my excuse involves a serious health issue. I'm not up to going into great detail on that at present.......that will require more energy than I can muster today.

So, to ease back into the blogopolis, I'll attempt to participate in one of LarryD's 3 1/2 Time-Outs-Tuesdays.

1)
A few weeks back, Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson declared that there is no war on religion in the good ol' U.S. of A.; particularly not the Roman Catholic Church. Well, that was before this ad in the New York Times calling for liberals and/or progressives to leave the Catholic Church.

2)
As pitifully short as this post is, I have put forth a tremendous effort to finish.....it looks as if I won't be able to take this any further.

Washington Woman - Warehouse Wedding Update.

Every striving to be on the cutting edge of the blogopolis, I would be remiss if I did not do some sort of update on my post from January, Babylonia Aivaz to Marry Warehouse.

As readers of that post will recall, Seattle "activist" Babylonia Aivaz planned to marry a 100 year old warehouse in a feeble attempt to stop demolition of the building. Ms. Aivaz and the warehouse were married before a group of approximately 50 people.

Sadly, there were protests; haters trying to spoil Babylonia's joyous occasion.

Same sex "marriage" supporters, Johnny McCollum-Blair and Phoenix Lopez argued that this was not a gay marriage. They claimed that Aivaz's insisting that the wedding was a "gay union" was irresponsible.

“Her saying it’s a gay marriage sets the community back with Christians and politicians and gives them a chance to say, ‘See, we told you, they’re going to want to marry everything if we give them the opportunity,’” said Johnny McCollum-Blair. “Having compassion against something you love, I understand, but to call it a gay union is irresponsible.”

The protesters believe that marriage is between two people.


Like my previous post, I had been able to locate a video of the event, which I uploaded to Youtube. That video can be see here:




Sources:
Much have I loved thee.
Woman, warehouse wed as some object reference to “gay marriage”

Killing Newborns is Morally the Same as Abortion, Writers Claim.

Since the very beginning of the abortion debate, we pro-lifers have been making the argument that abortions should not be allowed because an abortion is morally identical to killing a newborn baby.

Now, there is outrage over a paper published in the British Medical Journal by two "academics" - Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne - which states,

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled."

Got that?

Giubilini and Minerva contend that mothers should have the right to kill their newborn children where abortions are already legal.

The two write;

"A serious philosophical problem arises when the
same conditions that would have justified abortion
become known after birth. In such cases, we need
to assess facts in order to decide whether the same
arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can
also be consistently applied to killing a newborn
human."

And yet, those SOBs in the, so-called, "pro-choice" movement didn't see this coming?

In the view of the "ethicists";

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing
someone a right to life."

I can't up with the words to describe just how disgusting I find this. You "pro-choice" really are beyond belief. You want to have us believe that this issue is about a woman's right to choose. This is and always has been, about the taking of innocent human life.

Julian Savulescu, editor of the publication which posted the article, said Giubilini and Minerva had received death threats over the issue. Naturally, Savulescu is shocked and surprised. Imagine, writers advocating utilitarian murder being targeted for violence.

I, for one, would never advocate violence against these two, regardless how disgusted I am by their very existence; I know that as long as someone is alive, there is always the chance for redemption.

Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison.

Gas Pump.

No editorial comment necessary: