ProWomanProLife

Columnist Naomi Lakritz of the Calgary Herald focuses on women in this column, but the reality is, we can’t have it all and no one, male or female, is entitled to everything he or she wants. Or put differently, you can have it all, just not at the same time. Most unfortunately, we live in a culture where people expect a lot. We can reasonably accommodate families, but there remain some places where babies don’t belong. Like Parliament, for votes, as Naomi points out:

Ladies, the world isn’t going to hand itself to you on a silver platter. It may offer you some things and may make some concessions to your status as mothers, but you’ve got to rise to meet the world halfway. You’ve got to do the rest. And you’ve got to understand and respect the idea that there are some places where babies simply don’t belong. Parliament is one of those places.

As the U.S. presidential election heats up, maternal health initiatives may fade into the background of daily news, but the need for something to be done still looms large over the poorest countries in the world.

We know abortion access isn’t a positive long-term solution for maternal deaths, and we know, pretty much for a fact, that it won’t empower the women living in these countries. Looking at the number of women in Africa living with HIV, we can begin to understand what choices those women do and don’t have when it comes to their sexual health.

In Southern Africa, the HIV statistics for young women are high. In Nomasonto’s village, over half the young women aged between 20 and 24 are living with HIV[...]

The most compelling risk factor is women’s lack of power to ensure they have safe sex. There is evidence that many women are unable to abstain from sex, guarantee that their partners will be faithful or insist on the use of condoms [...]

In many African countries, particularly where people have been displaced by war, women are extremely vulnerable to sexual violence and “transactional sex”. Even in countries where there is no war there is a high level of coercive sex. In one survey, 40 per cent of young South African women reported being sexually abused before they reached the age of 19.

Pooling our resources into providing abortion access won’t elevate the status of women in these regions or keep them from contracting HIV. Giving women the resources and support they need to say “no” to sex really is a life or death situation. Let’s focus on that.

After a hard hour of googling, I’m still not entirely sure what the Motherhood Bill drafted in Tanzania will and won’t promise to deliver, but as soon as I know, I’ll let you in on it.

Dodoma — DOCTORS and nurses have hailed civil society organizations that drafted the Motherhood Bill, saying it will help improve maternal and reproductive health services. [...]

The draft prepared by the Tanzania Women Lawyers Association in collaboration with Care International and White Ribbon Alliance, aims at addressing critical challenges facing mothers, newborn and teenagers among others in accessing reproductive health services. “There are several issues that will be solved with the Safe Motherhood Act in place, we will be assured of all necessary equipment for safe delivery and thus we will be able to reduce maternal and child mortality,” said the Regional Nursing Officer, Ms Anatolia Mkondo.

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.

While sex selection isn’t the only bad reason to have an abortion, it’s one that many people have an opinion on. What the issue of sex selective abortion does is create a space to discuss abortion in the social and political realm that might not have existed otherwise. For a lot of people, sex selection is their line in the sand.

This article refers to sex selection as an “abuse” of rights. In my opinion, that’s a good place to begin discussions about what is currently an unrestrained use of legality (ie. abortion anytime, anyplace, for any reason).

While it is a woman’s right in Canada to continue only wanted pregnancies, exercising rights and abusing them are two very different things. Making an inherently sexist decision based on the fact that it’s your right as a woman is definitely an abuse of that freedom.

Compared to China and India, where millions of female fetuses are aborted, and many girls who are born are told they are unwanted, the problem may seem small—but that doesn’t make it less important.

While I disagree that immigration is responsible for Canada’s abortion rate, and while any abortion because a child is “unwanted” is an abuse of rights, articles like this give me hope that the nation is beginning to publicly question what’s been happening behind closed hospital doors. The number of comments these articles get is also an indicator that people want to discuss the current legislation.

When the sage glitterati of our intellectual elite want to show some level of annoyance while maintaining their politically correct bone fides, they claim a subject is “nuanced,” “complicated,” or “difficult.” I’m speaking here of André Picard’s article in the Globe recently about how sex selection is a “complex issue with many nuances.”

You know what? Give me Joyce Arthur over André Picard, I say. Dude claims he is unbiased and nuanced, while actually being a cheerleader for abortion. I much prefer people who have a strong opinion, aka, a pulse.

Anyway, the Post comments today in Full Pundit on this “infinite nuance.” I enjoyed that.

Or, in the words of one friend who emailed me his frustration, “sex-selection abortions are not nuanced and complicated.  They are pretty damn simple.  I want a boy.  I carry a girl, therefore I terminate girl’s life simply because I want a boy. Wow. Uber f*&ing complicated.  Soooo nuanced!  How do we keep up?”

Indeed. All that nuance, keeping me up at night.

That’s Father Raymond de Souza’s view. I tend to agree. I’ve been asked multiple times over the past days what the solutions are to eradicating sex selection abortion. The fact is that in a permissive abortion regime, there are none. And the people who could end the permissive abortion regime don’t want to, ergo, they really don’t care about missing women.

My favourite line:

Is all of [the missing women] due to abortion of girls in utero? No. In 1990, much of it was due to female infanticide. But the arrival of inexpensive ultrasound technology in rural Asia in the 1990s meant that the killing became easier to do before birth rather than after.

On a radio show yesterday I struggled to find the right words, to be less aggressive, more amenable with the general public. How to discuss these “missing women?” I struggled but landed on “killing” too. There just isn’t another word. And while I don’t want to be harsh, I have vowed to not use euphemisms in discussing abortion, either.

Here’s part one. This could have been a lot worse. It could have also been a lot better. I do believe that they should do a sting operation on a Planned Parenthood clinic. Someone should try asking them important and reasonable questions like “When does life begin?” and watch them squirm. Or lie. The truth really won’t do when you are trying to coerce women into believing that abortion is totally and completely neutral.

_________________________

Update: And part two, here. A lot of repeat from part one.

So far as I’m concerned, this is an old story. But it’s still good it’s coming up, since it is still a problem. I suppose some people have a hard time accepting the facts in front of them:

Other organizations, such as the South Asian Women’s Centre and the Immigrant Women’s Health Centre in Toronto, said they didn’t know of a single case of a woman seeking a sex-selective abortion. “I don’t think that any one of our councillors in 30 years of serving immigrant women has had someone say I want to know the sex of the fetus before getting an abortion,” said Ayesha Adhami, administrative co-ordinator at the IWHC. “We’re a little concerned about there being racial stereotypes around this, and whether or not it’s actually happening in Canada is hard to say.”

Actually, it’s not that hard to say at all.

Is this what passes for “women’s rights?” Now, courtesy of abortion activists, women are permitted to bleed to death, by themselves! Oh the freedom.

Facebook temporarily removed the profile picture of Rebecca Gomperts, the Dutch founder of Women on Waves, an organisation that works to provide women with safe, legal abortions. The image consists of a block of text providing information on how women can self-induce an abortion without the assistance of a doctor. Women on Waves was furious, but media attorney Quinten Kroes said there was little they could do….

Describing the contentious picture, Rebecca Gomperts said, “It’s actually a sticker we designed to provide information on how women can safely induce an abortion using a medicine called Misoprostol. The text is based on information and research from the World Health Organisation. So it is really quite safe.”

“Quite safe.” Wow. I’m severely underwhelmed.