In loco parentis?

I've just learned (from another parent) that the kids' school is going to allow the local health authority to implement a programme of vaccination of girls against the HPV virus.

This starts tomorrow, apparently, and both Ant and Bernie are in the target age ranges.

We have been told nothing about this officially. Given that the school can't give a kid an aspirin without written authorisation (though as we know they can whisk a girl away for an abortion without ever telling the parents, before or after) one suspects double standards again.

As HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and we are bringing our girls up to be chaste, we will be opting out - but we are only able to do so because we found out and have been able to brief the girls!

Split the nuclear family at your peril...

I was reading the other day about (yet another) father who had killed his kids and then himself on the break-up of his marriage. Clearly this is a great evil. But to understand it I think we must understand the huge damage done when one (whoever that one is) attempts to split the nuclear family. There is something akin to a nuclear reaction - with devastating consequences.

Friends of mine who have split up, who used to love each other, are now filled with rage towards each other. They deceive themselves into thinking it is better for the kids that they split, rather than the constant bickering. But the kids see it differently - and I think in their hearts, the parents do too. But the nuclear reaction of negative energy released by the splitting of the family has created a force that will take truly supernatural power to overcome. So remember them in your prayers.

But the broader point is this: once a couple are married, are committed to each other, have promised to stay together, have made love (and particularly once they have had children) they have created a bond that ties them to each other - a bond so strong that attempting to break it releases a huge amount of dangerous energy - damaging all involved. And there are very many very damaged people around as a result...

Kill the Useless

Baronness Warnock - who chaired the Human Fertilisation and Embryology committee that culminated in the Warnock report - has revealed quite how corrupted her thinking really is.

This aging ethicist proclaimed on a BBC interview that not only should those who are useless and costly (because of Alzheimers) be allowed to choose assisted suicide, but also that - being useless and costly - they should want to die.

To their credit the Alzheimers Association were quick to condemn her ignorant and hostile remarks.

Mary Warnock was made a Baronness after giving the required answer in the Warnock Report - that anything goes.

And so the enemies of humanity march on...

Attack on our children

The relentless drive to sexualise our children continues: "A sex education booklet aimed at six-year-olds has been published by a UK sexual health charity,' reports the Times and the BBC. The 'charity' concerned is FPA, (formerly the Family Planning Association.)

Sexual health is one of those terms that means different things to different people. To fpa it means: 'the capacity and freedom to enjoy and express sexuality without fear of exploitation, oppression, physical or emotional harm”. A strange definition of health...

Note in particular that it is the fear of harm they seek to eradicate, not the harm itself. Their philosophy and policies lead to huge amounts of physical and emotional harm... but as long as nobody fears it...

Their 'services' of course are contraception and abortion, and their top current campaign is to extend the abortion laws to Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the people there.

And these are the people seeking to 'educate' our kids - our six year old kids! - about sexual health.

Ours are, of course, already excused from such education (see my earlier posts about that - follow the Sex Education tag for details.

Taking Organs from the living...

I've been asked for more information on organ transplants, brain death, and so on.

A good source is the Linacre Centre (who have a link in my sidebar). In their article on criteria for death, they comment on the problems with the (relatively) recent notion of 'brain death' as the determining criterion:

The Linacre Centre's own view is that `brain death' protocols are insufficient for establishing the death of the body: we have become increasingly convinced by evidence suggesting that integrated bodily activity can continue after `brain death' has been diagnosed. There have been documented cases of `brain dead' patients maintaining bodily functions for months or even years: pregnant women have gone through pregnancy, children have grown up and passed through puberty, etc. 3 Moreover, it is well-known to transplant teams that heartbeating donors move when organs are taken, unless they are paralysed by drugs, and that their blood pressure goes up when the incision is made. It is worth noting that some anaesthetists recommend that the supposed `cadaver' be anaesthetised when his/her organs are retrieved. Most organ donors are unaware that their hearts may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, etc.

(from http://www.linacre.org/humbod.html see also http://www.linacre.org/death.html)

The Times has reported that even this flawed measure is to be ignored in the drive to harvest spare parts from people who may (or may not) be dead. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4232319.ece

IMPORTANT UPDATE: here

Re-defining Death

I have been reading a lot about brain death and organ transplants recently. I had not realised that for hearts or livers to be transplanted successfully, they must be taken from a living body, as they deteriorate beyond usefulness on death. And that in order to facilitate that, the medical profession has introduced the notion of ‘brain death’ to legitimise the practice.

This has disturbed many nurses and others, as they cannot believe that the donor is dead when his or her heart is beating, flesh is warm, and (in one case) when he put his arm around the nurse just before they were about to remove his heart.

So what do our medical professionals do? Inject a drug that paralyses the donor - and then proceed.

The parallels with the murderous assaults on the unborn in the womb are extraordinary: the start of life re-defined contrary to the evidence, the injection of tranquilisers or anaesthetics prior to the murder…

IMPORTANT UPDATE: here

Head Girl

Ant has just been appointed Head Girl of her school. This is quite funny, as the head, when he interviewed her for admission a few years ago was very concerned at our weird way of bringing our kids up - particularly the de-humanising policy of not having a TV. I wonder if he remembers that now, and whether he's drawn any conclusions.... Probably not.

The Devil in Marriage Preparation

I’m working on a group that is preparing a new marriage preparation programme. It’s going really well, but I have been very interested in one difference of opinion. Some of us, including me, believe that as part of the programme, we should mention that Satan hates marriage and will attack it. We believe people should understand that it is a spiritual battle they are engaged in. Others are very concerned about this, and feel that we risk alienating people or instigating fear.

As readers of this blog will know, I do not like the culture of fear: but that is partly because we are taught to fear the wrong things (social disapproval, or remote risks, for example) rather than those things we should fear: sin and evil.

But also I believe that without a proper understanding of Man’s fallen state and the reality of spiritual warfare, we cannot make sense either of our own struggles, or of Our Lord’s triumph and what redemption means.

More Discord...

Another reason why I think the Accord project is seriously flawed is the assumption made, without any evidence, that Faith schools are socially divisive.

I believe that people strongly and positively educated in (say) the Catholic Faith are able to be more understanding of and more compassionate towards those who are different from themselves. Look at how people of strong Faith can work in the missions in any culture on earth with compassion and courage.

It is those who are insecure in themselves who are scared of others. and who form the gangs and cliques that are so divisive.

It's a bit like the flawed argument for co-educational schooling: that only by raising kids of each sex together can we foster good understanding between the sexes. But time has shown that not only is co-education bad for education, it has also done nothing to enhance the quality of relationship and understanding between the sexes.

Raising manly men and women who are confident in their identity as women is a much surer way - and that may well be done better in s (good) single sex environment.

Dishonest Accord

According to the BBC "The Accord coalition is made up of religious leaders, humanists and teachers who have come together to call for, not an end to, but a change to faith schools." (See New Pressure over Faith Schools: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7587849.stm)

But when you read that they want to:

A) ensure that teachers in Faith Schools are not selected on the basis of their Faith
B) ensure that pupils in Faith Schools are not selected on the basis of their Faith
C) ensure that religious education in Faith Schools is 'an objective, fair and balanced syllabus for education about religious and non-religious beliefs'

you realise that what they want is the destruction of Faith Schools.

For how could a school be a Faith school if the teachers, the pupils and the teaching are none of them inspired by a Faith?

Accord would be more honest to admit that it seeks the end of Faith Schools.

Their dishonesty does them no credit at all.