ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Featured Posts

Why I get teary when I see people with Down Syndrome

by Leave a Comment

Because of moments like this, where a doctor advises a mother, five months pregnant with her wanted child, to abort because there is a diagnosis of Down Syndrome. Why would the doctor do that? For every person with Down Syndrome you see, there are eight or nine more who didn’t make it.

Most recently I saw a little girl of nine or ten, dressed in pink, holding a doll in one hand and her Dad’s hand in the other, crossing the street. They looked the opposite of miserable, wherever they were going.

I will never understand a doctor who “recommends” death as “treatment” for a condition with which people live happy, fulfilling lives.

 

 

The danger of a single “anti-choice” story

by 2 Comments

“Show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become.” – Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie

Recently, thanks to a video that was circulated around on Facebook, I was re-introduced to the work of Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie, a renowned Nigerian author and feminist. I had first studied her work during my days in feminist academia. This is where I first learned about her idea of the single story.

In simplified form, Nzogi Adichie’s idea of the single story is this: when media, popular culture, and other societal forces work together and create a single story, a monolithic representation of an entire group of people, the nuance and heterogeneity that exists within the group is erased and they become known by that single story and only that single story.

If we take a moment to pause and consider the world we live in today, we will realize that single stories are being sold to us every day by news outlets, social media, and any individual who has a vested interest in targeting and undermining a specific group of people.

I see this happening to political groups and religious groups, racial minorities and sexual minorities. And, to some extent, these single stories are being noticed and exposed. However, there is a single story that I see perpetuated in almost every area of mainstream society. This is the single story about pro-life or “anti-choice” individuals.

The singly “anti-choice” story goes something like this:

All “anti-choicers” are, as the name suggests, anti-choice. They do not care about life, but rather only care about limiting women’s reproductive freedoms and controlling women’s bodies. “Anti-choicers” are almost exclusively old white Catholic men who shake signs in women’s faces and scream that women who have abortions are murderers. They are all sexist and misogynistic creeps who refuse to respect women’s bodily autonomy, and they only really care about children until they are born. “Anti-choicers” are heartless and compassionless, not to mention deceptive, ignorant, and hateful. In short, they are horrible people. All of them.

This is the single story of the pro-life movement. And it is this single story that erases all of the difference and nuance, diversity and heterogeneity within the pro-life community.

The truth of the matter is that the pro-life community is comprised of millions of diverse individuals who differ in culture, gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, and religion. For example, despite being rather small at the time, the pro-life club at my university was comprised of students who stand in stark contrast to the “old, white, Catholic man” stereotype that the single “anti-choice” story perpetuates. We had students who were secular/atheistic, LGBTQ2+, Muslim, and racialized/people of colour. Most of our club members were also female students.

The problem with the single “anti-choice” story is that it fails to represent the beauty and diversity that exists within the pro-life movement. Instead, it creates a fraudulent representation of “anti-choicers” and projects that on all pro-life individuals. The end result is that mainstream society develops a false understanding of the pro-life community, remains ignorant and blind to the reality of who pro-life people are and what they represent, perpetuates this deceptive discourse using everything from university professors to media outlets, and then uses this ignorant, deceptive, and monolithic representation of “anti-choicers” to justify perpetrating hatred, aggression, and violence against pro-life individuals.

The single “anti-choice” story has been used to justify the recent Bubble Zone legislation in Ontario that limits free speech for pro-life individuals (which was justified by claiming that “anti-choicers” are all violent).

The single “anti-choice” story has also been used to argue that physicians and healthcare providers who have religious/moral objections to providing certain services (such as abortion and birth control) should be forced to go against their convictions and provide the services. This is justified because “anti-choice” physicians and healthcare providers are viewed as being religious fanatics who are trying to force their beliefs on other people, which follows the faulty depiction of all “anti-choicers” as Catholic (or even just religious). Unfortunately, there is no space made for the truth, which is that pro-life physicians and health care professionals are autonomous men and women from a variety of religious or secular backgrounds who choose, for personal, professional, or religious reasons, not to engage in certain practices/provide certain services (and who have a constitutionally protected right to do so, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

The single “anti-choice” story fuels confusion, misinformation, and deception. It creates division, isolation, and polarization. Perhaps more than anything else, it breeds stupidity, idiocy, and ignorance. By creating a two-dimensional, monolithic representation of pro-life individuals, pro-abortion pundits are able to avoid answering difficult questions, engaging in constructive conversation, and addressing important concerns that pro-life people raise when discussing the issue of abortion (and other issues that fall within the pro-life worldview). Not only is this lazy, but it actually does a disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

The single “anti-choice” story creates a generation of ignorant, uneducated, radical pro-abortion activists who have memorized meaningless rhetoric but lack arguments with substance. And, when we consider the importance of the abortion debate in protecting human rights, addressing crisis pregnancies, and supporting women in need, this ultimately harms the men, women, and children whose lives are affected by abortion is life-altering (and life-ending) ways.

This must stop. We must put an end to the single “anti-choice” story, not only by holding pro-abortion groups and mainstream media outlets accountable, but also by actively contributing to the multitude of diverse pro-life stories that exist internationally.

So if you are a pro-life individual, stand strong. Be proud of your pro-life stance. Share your story. And let the diversity of the pro-life movement be seen.

Men, women and abortion

by 1 Comment

Jonathon Van Maren drew my attention to this letter seeking advice about whether a woman can ethically keep a child her boyfriend doesn’t want in the New York Times. He comes down hard on selfish and stupid men, which may very often be the case. However, we as women have taught men this is a legitimate option by so often taking it.

Women are always the ones who attach to “what has begun to grow inside us” sooner, as the NYT letter writer puts it (Although she writes this in the context of not having attached to what is growing inside her, yet). Men are by default more distant from their children, one could argue, until they are born. In contrast with a mother who is breastfeeding, men are more distant from their children even after they are born. A sad story I’ve heard more than once includes men who were angry with a pregnancy, but happy with the child who is born, or men who are angry at a pregnancy, demand an abortion, but then change their minds, often when it is too late.

This mentality, by the way, starts with the birth control pill. For hundreds of years women have had the means to prevent pregnancy but the Pill wins for its efficacy, and created a world in which pregnancies while on the Pill were not normal, but accidents. This is why, by the way, the Pill increases abortion use instead of diminishing it. In this domain, one of the greatest myths is that pro-life women like myself have to be pro-birth control pill because this is, so we are told, what prevents the unwanted pregnancies such that no one ever needs to get an abortion. That the facts on the ground show the opposite is never mentioned. If the birth control pill diminished abortion, we would have seen a sharp decline in abortion after the Pill’s normalization in the 60s, but this is quite obviously not what happened.

Part of the culture change of making abortion unthinkable includes women teaching men by our actions. We bear the greater burden in pregnancy and we understand what is happening within our bodies. Pregnancy after sex is normal and possible–and if all men and women believed this and knew it to be the case, there would be a great deal more caution involved in who we go to bed with. Which might avoid the conundrum of learning your boyfriend of several months “never wanted children” and is now demanding a woman at the tail end of her fertility have an abortion.

There is so very little about modern sexual ethics that makes any sense. And certainly, I’d argue, these ethics are more unfair to women than men. This is why women need to be the ones to reject them.

 

How a little baby can teach us

by Leave a Comment

Lucy-Rose Kmiec only lived for 39 days, but in it she changed the lives of those around her. A beautiful article about her and her family.

The day that she died, Max was the one taking care of her and Jolie was using the tube feed. Two months ago, I wouldn’t have trusted them with anything,” added Tom with Evangeline chuckling at the comment.

“They really, really matured so quickly and we didn’t have to teach them anything. They just picked it up,” said Tom.

“And the love that they gave her,” piped in Evangeline. “The amount of kisses that she got and hugs and encouraging words for her to continue fighting. They would tell her, ‘We love you, we’re proud of you, you’re doing so well.’”

Tragic but amazing. No shortage of heartache this side of heaven.

Lucy-Rose Kmiec, July-August 2018

Feminism, rape culture, and the pro-life movement

by Leave a Comment

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had recently finished reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. Well, I am back to discuss another one of the incredibly problematic accusations that was made in this book. And yes, we are going to be focusing once again on Jill Filipovic’s essay “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” (Prepare yourselves.)

In addition to misquoting religious texts and accusing “anti-choicers” of trying to “give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19), Filipovic also decided to draw illogical comparisons between sexual assault and abortion. This is what she said:

“Sexual assault is not only a crime of violence and power, but also one of entitlement. So long as men feel entitled to dominate and control women’s bodies, sexual assault will continue. While issues like reproductive justice may initially seem unrelated to sexual assault, they are a crucial aspect of women’s bodily autonomy and integrity – legally forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy for nine months and give birth against her will and without her consent, or coercing certain kinds of ‘unfit’ women into not reproducing, are deeply troubling uses of women’s bodies to serve the needs, ideologies, and desires of others” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 26).

Filipovic then went on to claim that “anti-choicers” were actively supporting rape culture:

“We need to situate sexual assault within the greater cultural battles over women’s bodies, and recognize that anti-rape activism cannot be separated from action for reproductive freedom, anti-racism, LGBT rights, and broader equality; and that the opponents of those movements are the same people who have an interest in maintaining rape culture” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 27).

Now, there are many, many things that could be said in response to these claims. For example, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that pro-lifers are “legally forcing a women to carry a pregnancy for nine months and give birth against her will and without her consent”. As a pro-life woman, I have no interest in forcing women to give birth. However, I am interested in ensuring that the state does not sanction abortion, which allows doctors to systematically dismember an unborn human fetus/being/child. This has nothing to do with “forcing” women to give birth and everything to do with “forcing” men, women, and physicians to abstain from participating in the destruction of human beings.

But Filipovic’s accusation goes much deeper than this. The real claim that Filipovic is making is this: by opposing a woman’s bodily autonomy, “anti-choicers” are supporting rape culture. So let’s examine this claim.

As a pro-life woman, I would like to clearly state, once and for all, that I believe in, support, and advocate for a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. I mean, let’s be serious. I am a woman. I love women. I believe in women’s rights. I studied feminism. I am a traditional feminist. I am thankful for my bodily autonomy. I support the bodily autonomy of other women. Capiche?

However, there is a massive difference between supporting a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and supporting a woman’s right to exercise autonomy over the body of another human being (ie. the human fetus). This is where pro-life and pro-abortion advocates diverge.

You see, pro-abortion advocates believe that a woman not only has the right to control her own body, but that she also has the right to control the body inside her body (ie. the body of the human fetus). (Side note: This is why the “My body, my choice” slogan should really be “Our bodies, my choice.”).

However, as a pro-life advocate, I reject this belief. I reject the idea that another individual has the right to assert control over, perpetuate violence against, and threaten the existence of another individual. And do you want to know a secret? This is perfectly in alignment with my stance as a traditional feminist who combats rape culture!

When a man rapes a woman*, he is asserting control over and perpetuating violence against another autonomous individual. In simplified terms, he is violating the woman’s bodily autonomy.

As a pro-life woman, it is my belief in bodily autonomy (among other things) that fuels my opposition to sexual assault. And it is also my belief in bodily autonomy (among other things) that fuels my opposition to abortion.

Now, before people begin to freak out and make all sorts of unfounded accusations against me, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I am not suggesting that abortion and sexual assault are similar. However, what I am saying is that Jill Filipovic’s claim is absolutely false.

Do “anti-choicers” actively support and maintain rape culture by “opposing” a woman’s bodily autonomy? Absolutely not. As I demonstrated, the pro-life worldview is premised on the equal distribution of human rights and bodily autonomy to all human beings, born and unborn. This is what fuels our opposition to abortion. This is what fuels our opposition to human trafficking. And this is what fuels our opposition to rape culture.

One final point: The connection between rape culture, abortion services, and businesses like Planned Parenthood is a lot more problematic than you might think. I would recommend that you watch this video and this video. The reality is that, through our activism, pro-life people have been actively combatting rape culture. And realistically, if you truly want to combat rape culture, you too must oppose the insidious way that abortion is used by Planned Parenthood to cover-up sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

 

*Note: I recognize that rape and sexual assault do not always follow this construction. However, in light of the fact that the vast majority of sexual assault is perpetrated by men against women, this is the construction that I have chosen to use.

Hypocrite vegans

by 1 Comment

The woman who recently harassed pro-life activists in Toronto owns and runs, wait for it, a vegan pizza shop. Vegan. No eggs, no milk, no animal products.

When a group of anti-abortion protesters brandishing graphic posters gathered outside Jennifer Bundock’s vegan pizza shop, she knew what she had to do. In an expletive-laden video that has been shared more than 3,000 times on Facebook, Bundock films her angry encounter with those holding the signs, eventually forcing them to leave the block.

Why vegan? Cruelty? People for the Ethical Treatment of People–we still need that movement. Would have been nice if the reporter had asked about this aspect of her business. Reminds me of this piece I wrote, a while back, about conversing with some reasonable young people in Costco about veganism and abortion.

The thing is, I told them all, there’s a different question you need to ask your local vegan restaurant. Are they pro-life? If you won’t touch animal milk or eggs—certainly you wouldn’t kill a human baby in the womb, right? This caught their attention; the wheels were turning. You could almost see it. The million dollar idea young man replied slowly. Vegans are generally pro-choice, he said correctly, because they are left-wing or progressive.

I will add that I support activists using graphic images to draw attention to the injustice of abortion only in particular ways and circumstances, the reasons for which would be the subject of another post. Certainly, some see for the first time what abortion is and hearts and minds are changed. At the same time, graphic images may set some women back in their own post-abortive healing. That said, this woman isn’t one of those–from the rant it does sound like she has had an abortion (it’s hard to hear, and I don’t want to listen twice). But she has already set herself so far back there’s virtually nothing anyone could say or do that might make it worse–or sadly for her–better.

I will also add that there is nothing like her painful, expletive-laden rant to highlight that abortion is awful and that it hurts women as well as our children.

The special rights of abortion providers

by 2 Comments

I recently finished reading the book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. It is a collection of short essays written by more than 25 different feminists about rape culture. Being a self-identified pro-life feminist myself, there were many arguments that I agreed with wholeheartedly. However, there were also many, many parts of the book that I found quite problematic. I’ll limit myself to writing about just one. (For now.)

The first essay was by Jill Filipovic, and it was entitled “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” I found myself cringing repeatedly throughout Filipovic’s essay, scribbling notes in the margins until eventually I started running out of space. So many claims she made were either ludicrous or blatantly untrue.

For example, when referring to the biblical account of the Fall in Genesis 1-3, Filipovic claims that “[w]omen are simultaneously thought of as living in inherently tempting bodies, and using those bodies to cause men to fall.” For anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the Bible, you will know that Eve’s sexuality neither tempted Adam nor caused the Fall. And of course, while I do not expect every feminist to understand the complicated theological themes in the Bible, the willingness of feminists to twist and distort religious texts to support their own misguided ideological claims is legitimately concerning. But I digress…

The claim that I found most fascinating was when Filipovic stated that “the anti-choice right promotes policies that would give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19).

I’ve heard this argument before. To flesh it out a bit more, it goes something like this:

“No born individual has the right to abduct someone, hook themselves up to the kidnapped individual, and then live off of their body for nine months. So how can you claim that a parasitic fetus should get these rights, rights that ‘no born person even has’?”

(A more complex form of this argument is known as the “Violinist Argument.” For more information about the argument and the subsequent pro-life response, you can start here and here.)

This claim is nothing spectacular. And yet, it is spectacular in that it reveals just how short-sighted and hypocritical radical pro-abortion activists have become. Consider this: In no other area of society do we justify torturing, dismembering, and decapitating human beings. In Canada, these are all crimes when committed against a born human being. When we see these gruesome crimes take place repeatedly, we call it genocide. On the international stage, there are conventions that prohibit these types of violence, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Even in times of war, these actions are not justified.

So I would suggest that we are asking the wrong question. The question is not: Why should we promote policies that give the fetus rights that no born person even has? The real question is: Why are radical pro-abortion advocates promoting policies that would give abortion providers like Planned Parenthood “rights” that no born person has: namely, the ability to torture, dismember, and decapitate other human beings?

Also, as a final side note, I would just like to point out that every born human being has the right to life. So really, pro-lifers aren’t asking for much. We’re just advocating for the oh-so-radical idea that all human beings deserve the right to life, whether 1 minute before birth or 1 minute after birth. Why? Because there’s nothing magical about the birth canal. Just saying.

Who knew?

by Leave a Comment

I don’t know anything about this Roe v. Wade movie (save for what the linked article tells me, which seems to be very biased even as it claims the movie will be very biased, but I digress). But I had no idea there was a “who’s-who of conservative Hollywood.” Where have they been hiding?

The rest of the cast is a who’s-who of conservative Hollywood. There’s Stacey Dash as Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jamie Kennedy as abortion-rights activist Larry Lader; Joey Lawrence as Robert Byrn, a Fordham University law professor who fought against abortion; Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey) and Justine Wachsberger as Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the attorneys representing Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, in Roe v. Wade; Octavius Prince as abortion-rights lawyer Cyril Means; and Lucy Davenport as Betty Friedan. The Supreme Court justices are played by Jon Voight (Justice Burger), Robert Davi (Justice Brennan), Corbin Bernsen (Justice Blackmun), John Schneider (Justice White), William Forsythe (Justice Stewart), Wade Williams (Justice Rehnquist), Richard Portnow (Justice Douglas) and Jarrett Ellis Beal (Justice Marshall).

Conservatives in Hollywood. Rare as hen’s teeth. “Hen”ce this photo. I could have chosen a glam shot of Hollywood but I prefer the chickens.

 

Meta