On the Pro-Life front, the Netherlands continues to be incredibly depressing, incredibly permeated by the culture of death. Michelle Malkin notes[1] that up to 28 percent of Dutch doctors would follow a child’s request to die over the wishes of the child’s parents. So apparently a child is competent to have an abortion, competent to choose to die, but not competent for his or her own criminal actions. Does anyone else see the falsity of the logic here?

Also in Pro-Life news, we have the story of a little baby named “Hope.”[2] She is alive and in the care of the state because of North Carolina’s “Safe Surrender Act” which allows a mother to leave her child with any responsible adult without being questioned and without fear of prosecution. The idea here is to prevent children from being killed or abandoned (much the same result most of the time) by parents who are unable or unwilling to care for them. Instead, under this law, they can be turned over to the state, which will attempt to find and contact the father (to see if he is willing to take on his responsibility for the child), and then, if the father consents (the article does not state what happens if he cannot be found), the child is put up for adoption.

As little in favor of state intervention in the family as I am, I think this a good law. I see it in the light of babies that have been found left in bathrooms, alleys, and dumpsters. I see it in light of babies found dead, killed by their parents. I see it as a state desperately battling to save some of the most defenseless of its citizens from death at the hands of those who will not or cannot do their duty to the child they have brought into the world. Further, this is not a state mandated intervention, it must be initiated by the mother, and the state does give the father a chance to exercise his responsibility. Thus I think this may even be a wholly positive measure. But, mother-initiated as it is, and as it does not involve the death of anyone, but rather holds the hope of adoption and life with a loving family for the child, even if it is not wholly positive, I strongly suspect that it is worth the cost (though it is of course impossible to state that with certainty while the cost is unknown).

Next we have the story of Kalea Lyn Allen, in Oklahoma.[3] This amazingly small 11 ounce baby was born three months premature. Further, even at that minuscule size, she is not the smallest known living baby. A little girl born in Chicago at 8.6 ounces is thought to be that. The littlest girl, born in September, was released from the hospital in February, and thus represents a miraculous success story. That in the face of law makers that would allow third trimester abortions. That in the face of those who would allow any abortions. For once this would have been called impossible, yet now these babies are born, nurtured, and live. Little Miss Allen has a 40 percent survival chance right now, she is being kept alive in a plastic tent, with her eyes covered, a tiny little oxygen tube, and presumably some kind of intravenous food source, as her intestines and kidneys are underdeveloped. Pray for both children.

[1] http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002456.htm
[2] http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/local_state/local_article.aspx?storyid=40992
[3] http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/11633812.htm

While the New York Times claims that this is an “implicit rejection of the administration’s policy,” I call it local governments taking charge of their own affairs in a laudable manner.[1] The left argues that this is good for us, then responds that it is so good for us that we cannot be trusted to implement it ourselves, it must be mandated from on high. And yet, why not let people decide for themselves if they want to live, or work, in a “green” county or city? Why not let them decide for themselves what measures are reasonable or cost effective? Is that not what democracy is supposed to be all about: ceding governance to the populace? Naturally, you could question how effective the Kyoto Protocol will be if only some places implement it, but I ask how effective it would be if everyone implemented it. From what I gather, this cannot halt global warming, cannot reverse it. The changes we have seen, if changes they are, are here to stay (or change further). Why then, if global warming cannot be halted, do we not expend our energy attempting to learn how to live with it, rather than fighting fruitlessly against the inexorable?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/national/14kyoto.html?ei=5088&en=c02e1cce1ca43706&ex=1273723200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Scientists have found that while canaries are excellent imitators while very young, once they hit puberty, they drop any “false” songs they have learned and sing according to ridged rules.[1] They are as yet unsure of the birds sound the same to each other, that is, if females will mate with the males who learned other songs while young, as readily, more readily, or less readily than “normal” canaries. They are correct, that this is fascinating. Why would canaries have this ability to learn other songs while young, only to drop it later? Why would they have the ability to learn at all when they do not seem to need the example to learn the “correct” songs?

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4544777.stm

More evidence for the fact that men and women are different comes with a German report that women are harmed more rapidly by alcohol abuse than men are.[1] Women suffered roughly the same effects as the men did, but did so for smaller amounts of alcohol and in less time than the men in the study.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4541281.stm