introverts

i love this video so very much.

she gets me! 

what the dog did

so yesterday i went outside and found this



my first thought was that i'd left something out for her accidentally. like last week when i left my wallet outside on top of the bins (doh!) and she ATE my savings card.

thankfully, we found a handwritten birthday card with the corners chewed off that revealed the whole mystery



the torn beanie and fairy floss (which maddy obviously LOVED, by the way) was meant to be a birthday present for the little girl next door, but the postie delivered the package to the wrong house. bad times.

luckily, we were able to replace everything, right down to the exact same wrapping paper, by examining the tags and remains. everything had been brought from the one shop. (thank GOD!)

her parents thought the whole thing was hilarious, and thanked us over and over for replacing everything.

we rung the post office and told them not to drop off any packages- even ones actually meant for us - ever again!

all's well that ends well :)

perpetual kid

this year, i'm buying everyone's presents from www.perpetualkid.com. well, maybe not, but it would be fun if i did :)

if fetuses aren't people

you don't need to know much about babies to realise that they don't change much on the day of birth. they don't go from being a blob of limbs and blood vessels to a tiny human being once they leave their mummy's tummy. and almost no-one, not even the most ardent pro-choicer, is going to try and say they do. 

this is a fetus. looks like any new babe, right? 

pro-choice people have been saying for a long time that these little ones do not really have a right to live. not until their born, or until they reach a certain number of weeks gestation etc. i suppose i can understand- not agree with, but understand - the latter argument. unfortunately, it doesn't take much reasoning before this happens. 

yep. two australian ethisists from monash and melbourne university are now arguing for post-birth abortions to become an excepted practice. seriously. 

they say that " Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." 

in other words, until you can articulate that your life means something to you, you don't really have the right to live one. 

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal."




a newborn with downs syndrome, via the age

the article goes on to say that children with serious disabilities such as down syndrome will be a burden to their families and the economy. since when did "being a burden" become any kind of reason for not allowing someone to live? can anyone say "fascism"?


 if we're talking about people who don't contribute financially to society, then there goes old people, seriously ill people, and chronic drug addicts. and this slippery slope just got steeper still. at what point does a normal, healthy infant become a person with rights anyway? do we really need to wait until they can say "i want to live. my life means something." 

this makes me so, so sad. 

fav pics this week

via my modern met

via kindnessgirl (neat idea, huh? ) 

via top design mag (yes, that's an elephant) 

via 640 pixels (tis a tulip farm. pretty! ) 

highlight from a really great sermon

"In beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work , 

sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and 

kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the 

power of God; with weapons of righteousness... through glory and dishonor,

in bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as imposters; known, yet 

regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful,

yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich, having nothing, and possessing everything" 2 Corinthians 6

these were the words of the missionary and apostle paul. he claims to have had nothing, and at the exact same time, to have possessed everything. confused? our pastor at telopea church of christ wanted to illustrate the difference, so he told us he owned a piano and played a short, easy tune for us. it was kind of awkwardly bad :(  then he played a video of a great pianist who played so beautifully that the congregation started to clap even though mr great pianist wasn't actually there to receive our accolades. he might not have owned the piano he was playing; but he certainly possessed it! 

GOD commanded the israelites to possess israel. because he had given it to them. i have to remember this. how many gifts has GOD given me that i have yet to possess? 

our roses are blooming