ProWomanProLife

The one thing you will never hear me say is that “I represent women.” No. You can choose for yourself whether ProWomanProLife represents you or not. And this site was started in opposition to the many pro-abortion feminists who were supposedly out there representing me.

This article by Karen Selick is about changing the law regarding marriage/cohabitation in Quebec. It’s a good article, but that is besides the point. This part caught my eye:

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) has intervened in the court proceedings to support Lola’s side. LEAF purports to represent Canadian women, but they certainly don’t represent me. I find their arguments illogical, demeaning and repugnant.

I do so wish that “women’s groups” would stop “representing” me in the public square. It would be such a relief.

WECARE for “World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education” is going to be very useful, indeed.

Today, WECARE posts an assessment of the “abortion is safer than childbirth” study.

Excellent assessment, worth reading in full. It gives a sense of just how politicized the research around abortion is.

This site, WECARE, is going to be extraordinarily useful.

WECARE stands for World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education.

In a world where it appears the Guttmacher is the only agency publishing or assessing abortion-related research, this is long overdue. (The Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. That doesn’t mean everything they do is flawed, but as they say, if you follow the money and it leads you to abortion providers, one certainly needs to be aware of that bias! That said, in my past life as a journalist, I once interviewed a psychologist, who, unprompted, said some of the Guttmacher’s work specifically to do with abortion is some of the shoddiest work he had ever seen. And this was no “pro-life” psychologist, and he did not think he was speaking to a “pro-life” journalist. I digress.)

Anyway, bookmark this site, because when it comes to getting great, up-to-date scientific information about abortion, it’s hard to find.

An item published earlier this week on LifeSite News announced that a UK academic was arguing in favour of ectogenesis (pregnancy outside the womb).

My initial reaction upon reading the LifeSite item – beyond the initial oh my… was that I could probably have poked holes in her arguments when I was a bona fide ethicist myself but recovering as I am from the physical and mental demands of a multiple pregnancy I … wait… did I just prove her point?

I think we should all calm down.

First, all academics, including UK ethicists, are under constant pressure to publish new and innovative material. Arguing in favour of ectogenesis is a little out there but not entirely surprising given this particular ethicist’s research interests. Secondly, the ethicist is a philosopher looking at pregnancy through a sex inequity lens, not a medical doctor announcing upcoming experiments in his newfangled hatchery. I can’t think of a western country who has a healthcare buck to spare on this type of research and experiment, can you? Thirdly, go rent a National Geographic In the Womb video and remind yourself of how wonderfully complicated conception is. Decades of research have only marginally improved outcomes for very premature children. There is very little we can do to replace the womb environment, even for fully formed infants.

Growing a human being from scratch outside the womb? Nice idea (I mean it, I’ve been pregnant seven times) but not a chance.

Medical research and innovation has not been able to beat the flu yet. Let’s not forget that.

_________________________

Andrea adds: This is Véronique’s post, for our Facebook readers. In case it isn’t abundantly clear that I have not been pregnant seven times!

Killing your baby is safer than having one. And way cheaper, too, while we’re at it! But that wasn’t the point of this study, which confines itself to the health benefits of offing your child.

Now here’s the thing. I’m concerned they didn’t include ALL the benefits of abortion. Did they, for example, add in the benefits, current and future, of scientific experimentation on the fetus? What about the masses who’ve been saved in vaccinations developed from fetal cell lines? I’m just trying to think of every angle.

Sometimes the abortion debate does lead to some pretty upside down, Orwellian moments.

“Study: Many teen moms surprised they got pregnant.”

(And to this, many people will say we just need better and more sex education. It never ends.)

The pro-choice movement likes to claim that pro-lifers are all old men. Right back at you.

Stumbled across this web site today (strange world I live in, yes). It provides the stories of women and men who used to work in abortion clinics but no longer do.

Today I heard some relatively fair reporting on the Roe v Wade decision. The station was AM 1310 in Ottawa. They had one clip from a pro-lifer saying this is the human rights struggle of our age, and then they gave a brief synopsis of what the debate is. I’m paraphrasing, but they said something like “it’s a debate between those who think abortion is murder, and those who believe in a woman’s right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.”

That they included it in their newscast at all is a very good start.

This started out as a post about why I love Sundays. And mostly, it shall continue as one. However, in my Sunday morning puttering, I’ve been reminded that today is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States of America. The Canadian anniversary of Morgentaler comes on January 28.

So. How to combine what was a happy Sunday morning with reminder of these decidedly unhappy events? I think I shall do it in the following way: by continuing with my Ten Reasons to Love Sundays, thereby declaring one obvious thing: Bad things are a part of life, but that doesn’t mean we give up the good. Does not celebrating the small stuff help us to find that right combination of grace and courage to fight the bad?

TEN REASONS TO LOVE SUNDAYS

Breakfast, no rush.

Random reading. A little Statecraft (Margaret Thatcher), a couple of pages of How then shall we live? (Chuck Colson) combined with Facebook status updates.

Cleaning my winter boots (with polish).

Skipping church. A decidedly non-rebellious form of rebellion. (If I had gone to church, I would have included going to church as a reason to love Sundays. I am pro-church, but whimsical, for those of you concerned about my spiritual frame of mind.)

Getting ready for next weekend (forward thinking!).

Second breakfast, likewise, no rush.

The fine art of puttering. Here, sorry to show off, I excel.

Making additional tasty salad dressing for vast quantities of leftover salad from party the night before. You’ll want to keep this recipe on hand. Never before has a mere salad solicited so much praise. Why the leftovers then? Because I made enough for 1000 men, marching strong, that’s why. (As everyone knows, strong men marching want nothing more than a Napa Cabbage Salad afterwards.)

Reminding myself of what my guitar sounds like. Must. Learn. F.

Thinking about skiing. Considering skiing. And eventually, though not quite yet, skiing.

(File under “Nothing in particular.”)