Wind chill warning for: City of Edmonton-St. Albert-Sherwood Park
Issued at 4:33 AM MST MONDAY 28 JANUARY 2008
EXTREME WIND CHILLS TODAY. THIS IS A WARNING THAT EXTREME WIND CHILL CONDITIONS ARE IMMINENT OR OCCURRING IN THESE REGIONS. MONITOR WEATHER CONDITIONS. LISTEN FOR UPDATED STATEMENTS.
AN INTENSE WINTER STORM CONTINUES TO TRACK THROUGH THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES. MANY AREAS OF ALBERTA HAVE SEEN BLIZZARD TO NEAR BLIZZARD CONDITIONS. HEAVY SNOW CONTINUES IN THE COLD LAKE REGION HOWEVER SNOW IS EXPECTED TO TAPER OFF THIS MORNING. IN THE SYSTEMS WAKE AN ARCTIC RIDGE HAS INVADED THE PROVINCE BRINGING COLD TEMPERATURES. THESE TEMPERATURES COMBINED WITH BRISK WINDS ARE GIVING WIND CHILL VALUES BELOW MINUS 40. WINDS WILL GRADUALLY DIMINISH AS THE RIDGE SETTLES INTO ALBERTA HOWEVER TEMPERATURES WILL REMAIN COLD. SNOWFALL AMOUNTS FROM THE STORM WERE GENERALLY IN THE 5 TO 10 CENTIMETER RANGE THROUGH MOST OF THE PROVINCE. BLOWING SNOW GAVE DRIFTS MUCH HIGHER THAN THIS HOWEVER A FEW OF THE LARGEST SNOWFALL MEASUREMENTS AS OF 4 AM MST INCLUDE: COLD LAKE...............23 CM
PINCHER CREEK........17-22 CM
CORONATION..............12 CM
THE COLDEST WIND CHILLS IN ALBERTA RECORDED AS OF 4 AM MST INCLUDE:
GRANDE PRAIRIE..........-49
CALGARY AIRPORT.........-48
CORONATION..............-48
DEL BONITA..............-47
LACOMBE.................-47
VEGREVILLE..............-47
THREE HILLS.............-47
OLDS....................-47
EDMONTON INTL AIRPORT...-46
WHITECOURT..............-46
THE STRONGEST WINDS THIS SUNDAY IN ALBERTA CAME FROM ONEFOUR NEAR THE CYPRESS HILLS WITH A GUST OF 93 KM/H.
PLEASE REFER TO THE LATEST PUBLIC FORECASTS FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
...and, according to theweathernetwork.com, as of half an hour ago the temperature at the Edmonton International Airport was -51 with wind chill. Frostbite can occur with five to ten minutes of skin exposure to the cold.
Yeah, global warming please? I dunno, it might not be wise to preach to these Canadians about how the world is doomed to go tropical. I'm really not seeing it.
However, as I'm not in a mood to list my objections against the global warming propaganda, let's try a different controversial subject. I was reading the paper this morning (and I had to venture out into the -51 degrees onto my snow-covered doorstep to get it, so it's good that something interesting was in there) and the ongoing discussion about abortion continues. What with the 20th 'anniversary' of a decision by Sir Henry Morgentaler approaching, the debate seems to have flared up again. I say 'anniversary' because, as one columnist pointed out, the word anniversary implies joyous celebration, and I hardly see a reason to celebrate the day Canada decided that its babies were no longer people.
Morgentaler was charged again in 1983 in Ontario for procuring illegal miscarriages. He was acquitted by a jury, but the verdict was reversed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case was then sent to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was acquitted once again, and the Canadian Supreme Court declared the law he was convicted under to be unconstitutional in the case of Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen 1988 (1 S.C.R. 30). This ruling essentially ended all statutory restrictions on abortion in Canada.
- Wikipedia on Henry Morgentaler, emphasis mine.
In Canada, it's legal to abort a baby up until the moment it's born. There's a slogan by a pro-life association I know of (I'm not sure of the name) that goes with a picture of a newborn baby and says, "Yesterday it was legal to kill me. Today it's not."
The frequently repeated defense by the pro-choice side of the debate is that a fetus (a word which, incidentally, means 'young child') is not a person, but a collection of cells. So why isn't a newborn a collection of cells? A fetus has distinct DNA, brain waves, its own heartbeat. It's a fully developed baby after three months in the womb. So why is it okay for a woman's choice to supersede a baby's right to life? Is a child only a child if it's wanted?
An excellent point made in the paper today: Canada relies so heavily on immigration why? Because we're killing our own children.
~Sil
7 comments:
Hehe. Yeah, if Al Gore is serious about this business, he can come up to the airport and do a speech. He'll have to keep it short, though, or his nose might fall off. ;)
Weird thought: If the principles of the abortion advocates was applied to sports, the people who followed it would go bankrupt. Since draft picks are not actually players yet, just the rights to select one, they are therefore meaningless and valueless, according to those people, and thus should just be thrown away. However, sports owners treat them with great care, because they're valuable. How much more valuable, then, is a baby? When the going gets tough and there's money on the line, their foolish "ethics" go out the window.
(That was a weird place to post that thought, because Sil hates hockey and might not have any idea what I mean. But ah well. lol.)
...yeah, that was pretty much lost on me. I'm not especially interested in finding out about the details of draft picks, either :P But I'm sure it applies...somehow...
Lemme put it this way, since I can't stand not having my examples understood. Things with potential to become something valuable have value in the business world, so, even assuming that premature babies have no value and aren't human yet like some do, it's still silly to say they're worthless. Say, if one finds a document that says that in 2010, you'll get 500,000 dollars for submitting it. Would you throw it away because it's not money yet? Absolutely not. It's worth the same amount as the money itself. Therefore, the same thing would apply with a little baby. Even if it's not a person yet, it will be, and therefore has equal value.
And the whole thing is moot anyways, because a little fetus or a premature baby is a person.
O_O Awesome. You guys have sweet temperatures. We've had 5ยบ weather for the last two weeks. It's weird. I want the temperature to go drastically up or drastically down.
Well, I could go on a whole pro-life rant, but....that's been pretty well covered, and I'd just be recycling other people's words for it. So I'll just say that I am 100% against abortion.
Hmm, I'm generally against abortion..but well, I have to say it's the better option in some cases. I'm against abortion for people who just refuse to take their responsibilities..if you decide to sleep around, you have to accept the possible consequences. But that's just one side of it.
If a fetus is obviously so sick that it won't have a very long or nice live once it's born anyway..maybe it's better to spare it from the pain. :S
And I can also understand that women who were raped would want an abortion. To look in the eyes of your child and recognize a rapist...I don't think it would be a very good psychological condition for both mother and child. Though I have to say I still think adoption would be a much better option...
"And I can also understand that women who were raped would want an abortion. To look in the eyes of your child and recognize a rapist...I don't think it would be a very good psychological condition for both mother and child. Though I have to say I still think adoption would be a much better option..."
I don't want to turn this into a debate. (So, why am I doing so? ;) ) But I heard an interesting story about one of the pastors of a church in the U.S - he is actually the product of his mother being raped, but he grew up to become a pastor and he's now helping people and doing good in the world. Obviously, I'm sure there are kids who didn't turn out so well who were the product of the same thing, but the point is that a child born that way is not somehow less valuable than another kind of baby.
Well, there are exceptions of course. An less valuable? I don't see humans as...valuable at all. Like one could actually be worth more than another. That was not my point at all.
There are exceptions of course, but a child that is raised by a parent who can't stand looking at him/her really is cruel. Psychological violence is so underrated..
I didn't mean every rape-pregnancy should be ended as soon as possible...just depending on the psychological condition of the mother. It isn't cruel, it's merciful. Though adoption would of course be an even better option, but I already mentioned that. But that's just my opinion.
Post a Comment