ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / 2008 / Archives for February 2008

Archives for February 2008

That’s your imagination keeping you up

by Leave a Comment

When I am not posting on ProWomanProLife, I am doing graduate research into decision-making in neonatal intensive care. Came upon this in an academic article on prenatal decision-making, that is, medical management decisions made when a woman is threatened by premature labor and delivery at the margins of viability (22 to 24 weeks gestation):

In Canada, a foetus is not legally considered to be a person. It is only once born that a neonate becomes a citizen with full rights. Therefore, [parents] are engaged in a decision concerning a person that does not yet legally exist and that cannot be considered a medical patient by neonatologists. The situation is even more so ambiguous when the foetus is not yet a reality for parents who, in anticipating their parenthood, have only imagined their baby.” (From Payot et al., 2007)

If nothing ever highlighted the hypocrisy of a system that delivers and treats infants at the margins of viability on one floor while aborting them on another, this should.

I have yet to meet a family in neonatal intensive care that considers the non-personhood of their baby when making medical management decisions. And what is that bit about the baby being “only imagined”? I’ll bet any pregnant woman who has ever been kept awake at night by a tossing and turning fetus would describe her baby as anything but “imagined”.

Everything’s relative… absolutely!

by Leave a Comment

The recent posts on the uproar caused by bill C-484 among abortion advocates made me reflect on the philosophical implications of opposing a bill that gives a different legal status to fetuses that are expected than to those that are not. I always thought that the entire edifice of choice arguments rested on moral relativism. In other words, whether something – ending the life of a fetus – is right or wrong depends on what you think it is. There is no absolute yardstick of morality and, consequently, what you see depends on what you choose to see.

So what should be the big deal about a bill that gives a special legal status to fetuses that are expected and wanted? If abortion is relatively moral, supporting an initiative that upholds this relativity should strengthen the choice rhetoric, shouldn’t it? Well apparently no. The “free abortion on demand” slogan cannot withstand any suggestion that the fetus is relevant because doing so would be admitting some abortions as unwarranted or unnecessary. And when the rightness of an action – ending the life of a fetus – won’t withstand the challenge of circumstances, it’s called an “absolute.” We pro-lifers have long argued that some things are absolutely wrong. It is time to start reflecting on the implications of holding abortion as absolutely right.

Perverse, and boasting about it

by Leave a Comment

I was just reading a two-day old column about Emma Beck by Michelle Malkin. And came across this jaw-dropper:

And who gets premium op-ed space in America’s newspaper of record to talk about abortion? Idiots like University of Iowa adjunct assistant writing professor Brian Goedde, who shared his festive thoughts surrounding the New Year’s Eve before his girlfriend’s abortion in an essay a few months ago in The New York Times. “The abortion is scheduled for two days from now, and we’re holing up,” he reminisced. “We do the dishes brush our teeth, climb into bed and have unprotected sex. ‘I’m not going to get more pregnant,’ Emily says. I’ve never felt pleasure more guiltily.”

So the good thing about an unwanted pregnancy is that it allows a guy to enjoy unprotected sex without consequences while his girlfriend waits for the abortion appointment? Is this what they mean by a woman’s right?

Boy, I’d hate to see a woman’s wrong.

___________________________

Rebecca adds: There are so many awful things about the Emma Beck story, but this quote stands out for me: “I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum,” Beck wrote. “I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late.”

In what universe did Beck give informed consent for this abortion? For any other elective surgery, I’d bet the medical staff would ask you to take a day or two to think it over. Do you think if a woman seeking breast implants said, about to go under, “I don’t want to do this,” they’d just proceed against her will, or assume she didn’t really mean it? The doctor who carried out Emma Beck’s abortion shares in the responsibility for her death. I wonder if he’ll get away with it.

____________________________

Andrea adds: Emma Beck’s story deserves more play than it got. Apparently we need abortion, because otherwise women would die in back alley abortions. My point all along has been that women are hurt, and yes, they die in “safe and legal” abortions. Providing abortion as a solution is a bit like having firefighters show up with a match…(“Hey- we notice something over here that’s still standing. Light her up!” Solution, indeed.)

Justice denied

by Leave a Comment

On Latimer, it’s justice denied.

You see, Canadian courts tend to be easy on killers of the disabled. Seven out of ten Canadians support Robert Latimer. Seventy percent of Canadians agree with assisted suicide for the chronically ill and disabled…

_________________

Brigitte adds: It still wouldn’t be right if 9.9 out of 10 supported it. And, ahem, Tracy Latimer did not die by suicide. It would help if we remembered not to confuse everything all the time.  

William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008

by Leave a Comment

When I first heard of William F. Buckley some 20 years ago, I didn’t like him.

It was Christmas. I wanted rollerblades. I got a William F. Buckley Word a Day calendar.

Since then, my esteem for this man with a great vocabulary and a great vision has grown. He accomplished so much, and for the purposes of this site, we should honour him for holding the life line in our culture. Not merely for holding it, but for ardently and eloquently defending it.

Read more about his life, here.

Human, animal or mineral?

by Leave a Comment

A Lifesite editorial here comments on the recent Hastings Center Report on infant euthanasia in the Netherlands. This point struck me as interesting:

What [pro-lifers] seem to have failed to recognize, therefore, at least with the necessary clarity, is that the humanity or inhumanity of the fetus is often no longer the issue – at least, not within the elite spheres of the pro-death movement…

Agreed. I once interviewed a woman working in an abortion clinic. Our conversation became more heated (not good) and I spluttered something along these lines of “Don’t you know what the fetus is?” She in turn rolled her eyes at me and said “Of course. You think I don’t know? You think women don’t know?”

So it was then that I realized there are two types of pro-choice people: Those who naively believe the fetus is not a person until a certain magical moment in gestation and those who know the fetus is human from day one but don’t care. (They also get touchy on the terms “person” versus “human” but that’s the substance of a different post. The fetus is human because it’s not animal or mineral, but a person? That’s a whole different ballgame. )

Unhappy

by Leave a Comment

So Robert Latimer is to be released from jail. That makes me angry. I understand that he’s no danger to society, and that he’s unlikely to re-offend. But that’s not the point, and never was. It is illegal – and wrong – to take the life of disabled people no matter what the reason. It bothers me that we live in a society that fully sanctions it when the disabled person is still in the womb, and tolerates it once the person is out.

___________________ 

Andrea adds: More disturbing than what Latimer did–kill his daughter–has been some of the sanctimonious pontificating from the media, which has ranged from full on sympathy, to understanding tolerance. This article is no different:

Born with a severe form of cerebral palsy, Latimer’s daughter Tracy was 12 years old, weighed barely 40 pounds, had no mobility, suffered unrelenting pain and endured five to six epileptic seizures a day, when Latimer ended her life… She had little more than a newborn’s consciousness and could communicate only through expressions, laughing and crying.

This is false, but even if it were true, so what? They claim suffering, suffering, suffering on Tracy’s part, but always neglect to discuss her and who she was: Her personality, her preferences, her schedule, her day. Tracy Latimer was a sister and a daughter, who had favourite colours and foods, and was a part of a family just the same as me. And I mean that. Tracy Latimer was no less a person than I.  

 ___________________ 

Véronique adds: About the likelihood of re-offending. When I was listening to excerpts of the parole board proceedings, the Board asked Latimer a question along the lines of: “What if one of your family members was disabled following a car accident? Would you take it upon yourself to end their life?” If my memory serves me well, Latimer never answered the question directly. It was a valid question that deserved an answer. While we are led to believe that disability is congenital and can be avoided by advocates of prenatal genetic testing, disability is often accidental. Latimer may never have to end the life of another daughter with cerebral palsy, granted. But it doesn’t mean that he will never be faced again with the disability of a loved one.

Joyce’s choices on Bill C-484

by Leave a Comment

Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has a letter in the Citizen today. She states there is a conflict between Bill C-484 (unborn victims of violence) and existing laws. There isn’t-because the only law governing the fetus today, and after this bill too, is a woman’s choice.

A woman can do what she chooses with her unborn child.

Now what Arthur is getting at is a longstanding hypocrisy: When an unborn child is wanted, he or she gets medical treatment, even in the womb. And when unwanted, he or she can be killed.

With this bill, when a wanted unborn child dies, the criminal can be charged accordingly.

The decision still hinges on a woman’s choice.

This hypocrisy has existed for some time, and this bill rests on that hypocrisy.

In these cases of violence against pregnant women, they wanted their babies. They chose to keep them. Therefore, honouring their memory, as per their family’s requests, many of whom are backing the bill, means charging the criminal for two murders.

Joyce Arthur, with her complaint, is suggesting that in these cases of violence against a woman and her child, that woman’s choice doesn’t count.

Why? Because Joyce Arthur fears, more than usual, that the eternal hypocrisy of our system will be exposed. (This system, which cares for infants on one floor of a hospital and aborts them on another.)

But either this is a game of choice, or it’s not.

Joyce has two choices then: To support women’s choices, or not.

Arbitrary? Yes. But groups like hers made the rules. Now they ought to play by them.

Brigitte Pellerin is swish

by Leave a Comment

brigitte.jpg

PWPL is proud to report that our very own Brigitte Pellerin is swish. Or at very least, she’s attending a swishy event. She’s on the jury that nominates the winner of the prestigious Shaughnessy Cohen Award for Political Writing and has both a ticket and a dress for this hot, sold out event. No karate kimono tonight.

This revelation spells the end of her self-deprecating “I’m an old goat” series of jokes. Clearly, you are cool and I think the rest of the old goats here would appreciate it if you just came clean.

_______________________

Brigitte is: Thinking about a comeback… I’m sure there’s one somewhere… How about I like being an old goat? Does that work?

_______________________

Andrea adds: As in, you are an old goat in swishy clothing? Works for me.

Meta