Read a little bit more about him in this light piece at the Post.

Naomi Lakritz also weighs in on our 400-year-old approach to when life begins, here. (It’s past 5 am, and there’s no water in my trough!)

A brilliant article and well worth the read especially in light of Stephen Woodworth’s continued efforts (and motion today in the House of Commons) to re-open the debate that is trying with all its might to remain closed.

And this enforcement of a new status quo succeeds so well due, surely, to benefits enjoyed as a result—benefits of an order that make acceptable even the killing of innocents, by their protectors, on a scale that freezes the imagination. How much then must depend on its remaining so, remaining beyond question? This is the nub of that ideological word choice. So much else can be chosen in a given life if the option to dispose of unwanted children is dependably available.”

It won’t be until over a decade later, when I am well into the actual world of parenthood, frazzled and overwhelmed with love and impatience for the tiny creature I have created, that I will realize that if I had actually had a baby at age nineteen it might have been the very thing that would have kept me from the years and years of misery and destruction ahead of me. It won’t be until I am finally a mother myself, and not until my cheek rests against my child’s soft downy head, that I will realize the bleakness of what I did all those years before.

In the wake of Komen’s decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now “under careful review.” Because God forbid anybody doing a master’s program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. 

I think Planned Parenthood doth protest too much. They are so up in arms over this Komen thing because they are on the brink, fighting for their lives. (Lives of unborn children, not so much.)

I’m talking about feminists.

I don’t mind the “f” word, in fact, I use it regularly in lots of positive ways. I’ll always understand some of the frustrations of being a woman (limited though it may be to my western experience), the desire to overcome obstacles, and the hope that my own daughters will have positive non-violent options in their lives. I get feminism, even if it doesn’t always get me.

I also get that conversations with women who feel abortion is “necessary” are often the most emotionally charged. Why? Because women mean so much to us. To keep your reason, it helps to think ahead about the kinds of questions a woman might ask and to lend their input Feminists for Life of America have prepared a Q&A of “Pro-Woman Answers to Pro-Choice Questions“.  They’re worth looking at. I like this one in particular:

Don’t you respect women enough to allow them to make a choice?

Most women do not have abortions as a matter of “choice,” but because they feel they have no resources to support a different choice. A coerced decision is not a free choice—it’s a last resort.

We support nonviolent choices—single motherhood, fatherhood, grandparenthood, marriage and various adoption options—along with practical resources and support.

A society that promotes abortion as a “necessity” or “necessary evil” underestimates women and the violence of abortion and disregards what women really want.

So why is there this huge fuss about sex selection abortion? If one can have an abortion for any reason or none, why not because a baby of the opposite sex is strongly preferred?

The reason is, as sex selection abortion most clearly demonstrates, that abortion is not just a private matter. The issue involves shared societal values, cultural norms and clashes of cultural values and shows that the cumulative impact of abortion has societal consequences.

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

A good article about this, here.

Bonne chance!