ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Andrea Mrozek

Successful social movements are inclusive

by 5 Comments

This article from late January by Michael Gerson gets at some important angles on the abortion debate that I had not thought about before.

It is the antiabortion movement that appeals to inclusion. It argues for a more expansive definition of the human community. It opposes ending or exploiting one human life for the benefit of another. There are heart-rending stories that prevent the simplistic application of this approach. But most of the antiabortion men and women I know have the genuine and selfless motivation of trying to save innocent lives.

Inclusion and expansion instead of exclusion and autonomy–are just some of the concepts he gets at. Worth reading.

Social inclusion, for all. (Including people in wheelchairs at running races.)

Helping pregnant women is verboten at Ryerson?

by Leave a Comment

That appears to be the case on Ryerson Campus in Toronto, where posters offering support to pregnant students caused another… kerfuffle. The student union doesn’t know what to do now, because they are worried the pregnancy support might be “anti-choice.” Does the student union understand how extreme this sounds to outside ears? Do they not believe there could even be one woman who would benefit from attention and support if she is pregnant unexpectedly and doesn’t want to abort? Have they never met anyone who was pressured to abort? These things are quite common. Must be that they live in a little ideological bubble, where all they can process are the words pro or anti-choice.

This article from the from the Ryerson student newspaper on Jan 23, 2018 explains.

About the new bubble zone and Canada Summer Jobs

by 8 Comments

Talked with Brian Lilley about the new bubble zone on CFRA last night.

What our governments would like is for abortion to be wholeheartedly accepted and applauded. So when anyone stands up and says otherwise, they have to quash that sentiment. That’s what is happening with the new restrictions around abortion clinics and with the Canada Summer Jobs program–no one should be allowed to say abortion is a bad choice. Hence also the heavy dose of Charter talk–abortion rights are nowhere in it, but maybe if we talk about them in that way, we can make it so?

The fact that there are, in the case of the bubble zone regulations, such strong punishments associated with free speech in the bubble zone shows just how brittle the pro-choice side is. On the one hand, women going to get abortions are freestanding, independent and strong–they’ve made their decision, so pro-choicers would lead us to believe. On the other hand, a flyer, or simply seeing someone with a sandwich board condemning abortion apparently causes such distress that it can’t be had for 50 metres outside the clinic.

So which is it?

We pay for abortion. We fund pro-choice groups. We don’t give real medical information to women considering abortion (Watch the movie Hush, please). And in this climate, we say that pro-lifers need to be Even Further Stigmatized?

I think pro-lifers are more effective than we give ourselves credit for. I also think the inclination of Canadians is more pro-life than even pro-lifers realize. The stats show the mushy middle leans toward wanting restrictions on abortion in certain circumstances. Only 16% of Canadians think abortion is acceptable at any time. That leaves a whole lot more Canadians who are conflicted. And that is a scary thing for pro-choice people–got to ramp up the propaganda campaign.

The thing about bubbles is, they pop.

 

 

 

“Trudeau can call abortion a right but that won’t make it true”

by Leave a Comment

A slightly re-written version of the Convivium article by Faye Sonier and myself posted on Huffington Post. I’m grateful for their willingness to engage both sides of the Canada Summer Jobs debatedebacle.

There are many hostile thoughts below the piece. Few of them constitute an actual argument, however. Very few engage the thinking in the piece, or mention the concept of competing rights. And God bless the lone man for stating over and over that abortion is killing and therefore not a choice. Wouldn’t you know it–he gets slandered for being backward because he is Muslim (which incidentally, the rude commenters are guessing at. It may be a reasonable guess, because he comments under the name Muhammed, but we don’t know this for sure.)

Witness the grosteque face of “diversity” among those who pat themselves on the back for being “progressive” and “tolerant.”

There are, in fact, numerous democratically legitimate arguments against declaring abortion a right. In the early days of the abortion debate, “the clump of cells” argument worked. Not so in an ultrasound era. In the early days of the abortion debate, stigma was attached to having a child “under the wrong circumstances.” Not so today. Surveys and polls today consistently show more women than men lean pro-life. Abortion, an issue that was supposed to be “settled,” is as hotly contested as it ever was.

Just not to our bold “women’s rights” campaigner of a prime minister, surrounded by “yes” women in an apparent echo cabinet. Saying a falsehood over and over doesn’t make it true. Naming abortion as a right doesn’t make the choice any better.

It’s a choice, so that bulge in her belly? It could be anything, really. We just can’t be totally sure. Until she tells us. Got it? Got it. 

 

It’s wrong to call abortion a right

by 2 Comments

Faye Sonier and I explain why abortion is not a right.

“Let that sink in for a moment. In Morgentaler, the Supreme Court stated that the Charter itself justifies the legislature limiting abortion access. This is a far cry from the claim that the Morgentaler decision established a right to abortion or that advocating for legislators to develop laws to protect the pre-born child is somehow anti-Charter.”

“The last frontier of violence against women”

by Leave a Comment

Interesting review of a book on surrogacy by feminist Dr. Renate Klein. From the book’s promo materials:

Central to the project of cross-border surrogacy is the ideology that legalised commercial surrogacy is a legitimate means to provide infertile couples and gay men with children who share all or part of their genes. Women, without whose bodies this project is not possible are reduced to incubators, to ovens, to suitcases. And the ‘product child’ is a tradable commodity who has never consented to being a ‘take away baby’: removed from their birth mother and given to strangers aka ‘intended parents’.”

An important read as Canada considers opening up our assisted human reproduction laws. I’d differ from Klein on some things; I would certainly categorize abortion as violence against women, which Klein does not, but I’d agree that all surrogacy (paid, unpaid) dehumanizes and commercializes human life. (The review also mentions some negative aspects of adoption, too, which I have to look into before commenting. Complex stuff.)

New IKEA ad. Creative, yet annoying

by Leave a Comment

A new ad has women doing a pregnancy test by peeing on an ad for an IKEA crib. If you’re pregnant the discount code for said crib shows up.

What I like: When you are pregnant, however early, you need a crib because the baby, though you can’t see him or her, is already there. Get a crib, people–whether you parent or someone else does. There’s no “undoing” your pregnancy. (Just waiting for Planned Parenthood in the USA to offer abortion discounts based on this same ad technology.)

What I don’t like: spending so much money and time on advertising that commercializes your family, starting with conception. I hate gimmicks–and that’s what this is. Plus, do you have to show IKEA the ad or do they take your word for it? Who wants to do that?

Creative and yet, annoying.

Clearly, any baby can just sleep in a cute basket lined with something fuzzy. And a comforting arm to reach in, now and again.

Meta