Comment and information on timely matters.

Recent news tells us that a movie about Jack Kevorkian is being produced in Hollywood.  Called “You Don’t Know Jack” and starring Al Pacino and Susan Sarandon, the movie is sure to gain many viewers. 

What is so disconcerting about this movie is that he will be shown as the ‘king of kindness’ rather than the ‘king of the kill’ – we truly are in a time where “…what is evil will be called good…” 

It isn't enough that we see millions of babies destroyed worldwide with abortion, but now even Hollywood is putting forward the destruction of ‘oldies’ with euthanasia-friendly movies and movie themes. 

When we have ‘topped them off’  at one end and ‘removed them’ from the other end of the life scale, will it start in the middle with those that are too short, too obese, not pretty or tall enough?  Where will it end?

According to recent research, women who have been treated for breast cancer can have babies without increasing their risk of the cancer returning and in fact studies being presented at the European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona suggest that pregnancy may even have a protective effect. 

As per the recent report, a meta-analysis of 14 trials, carried out by researchers from Belgium and Italy, shows that pregnancy is safe for breast cancer survivors.  It covered trials over a 39 year period involving 1,417 pregnant women with a history of breast cancer and 18,059 women with a history of breast cancer who were not pregnant. 

The analysis actually suggested that patients who became pregnant after a diagnosis of breast cancer had a reduction of 42 per cent in the risk of death compared with those who did not get pregnant, said Dr Hatem Azim of the Institute Jules Bordet in Brussels.  He said that while it was well known that oestrogen was linked to breast cancer, the apparent protective effect of pregnancy could be explained by higher levels of the hormone inhibiting cancer cells or the way the body bolstered its immune system when a women is pregnant. 

He stated, “Our findings demonstrate that pregnancy is safe in women with a history of successfully treated breast cancer.  There is a perception in the oncology community that women with history of breast cancer should not get pregnant for fear of pregnancy increasing the risk of recurrence by means of hormonal stimulation.  This meta-analysis strongly argues against this notion.”

Read more at Times Online

What mothers have instinctively known has now been shown by modern technology – babies are sensitive to their mothers’ moods.

A recent experiment has shown that foetuses threw their arms around when their mothers watched a feel-good clip from “The Sound of Music” — but became subdued during a sad scene from “The Champ”.

Researchers have no idea how the babies pick up on their mothers' emotions, but suspect that the rush of hormones triggered by an emotional film are transmitted indirectly to the foetus.

The findings, reported on 16-3-10 in New Scientist magazine, add to the evidence that a pregnant mother's mood and stress levels can affect her unborn child.  When the mothers listened by earphones to a happy tune from the Sound of Music, the babies became more active, moving their arms.  However remained quiet still when a sad soundtrack/music was played.

One has to wonder how many more discoveries will have to be made before pro-abortion minded people admit and believe the unborn baby is indeed human?

Once again the ability of the death-mongers to sugar coat an ugly situation is astounding.  In the latest report from Bioedge the term being used to make the intentional killing of an infant more palatable to his/her parents is "adequate terminal care" because it makes the parents feel better.

How joyous an occasion it must be to cloud one’s mind with the “adequate terminal care” of their child, rather than the taking of his/her life as is the actual reality of the situation.

Many many years ago it was proven that the first step to any form of social engineering was to change the terminology to sound more ‘acceptable’.  We saw it with Hitler in relation to the Jews, we have seen it with abortion and now the spin doctors are at it again with the new ‘acceptable’ term of “adequate terminal care”.


With International Women's Day drawing near, there is much moaning and groaning amongst the vocal feminists that there is not a 50/50 male/female spread amongst the top corporate jobs here in Australia.  This seems to cause them endless frustration.

However, should we look at the situation logically, as was borne out by a recent survey, many women aren't hitting the glass ceiling by choice.  According to the said survey, their Number 1 priority was raising their families.  Other studies have shown women like to "be there" for their and enjoy the option of working part time.  

Women don't like being forced to work due to rising costs.  They want to be raising their children themselves, not dishing them out to paid caregivers.

IWD never seems to be about supporting women in their homes, only in the workplace.  Why?  Is there some hidden agenda working here?  We know many women are hesitant to have a child as they will lose their 'place' in the corporate world.  The constant pressure on this is that by the time they return post-birth, they may have been left behind in the race to the glass ceiling.  Hence, abortion becomes a thought (frequently translated into action) if a baby is created not at the "right time".

Perhaps some pressure should be brought to bear on the organisers of the events of IWD to consider helping raise the profile of the joys of really choosing — between being a stay-at-home-mum, a mum who works part-time, and those who choose to work full time.