ProWomanProLife

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

Archives for March 2008

Upside down justice

by Leave a Comment

wenceslas_square.jpg

Abortion is unjust from just about every angle. So why do we keep it around? I’m giving a talk for the Halton ProLife group this evening on the injustice of abortion and arguing that the reason why abortion is offered in this society is because too many people, even those who might be personally against abortion, actually think it is compassionate in some way; that it serves justice.

I think offering abortion serves justice as effectively as riding a horse upside down.

(Photo from Wenceslas Square, Prague)

Marital breakdown live

by Leave a Comment

The Moment of Truth. Instead of trying to solve problems–this show creates them. They find the most dishonest, shallow and superficial married couples in all the land and then poke and prod them into divorce.

This is why I don’t have cable. And could this be why so many more North Americans are staying single, getting pregnant out of wedlock and just generally not holding marriage in high esteem? Well done, Fox!  

Common reasoning

by Leave a Comment

Here is a perfect example of the type of argument I find hard to swallow.

…the anti-abortion campaign is a scare tactic, not a pro-life lesson. If we want to debate children’s rights, let us look at all the neglected, abused and lost children who need loving homes.

Sadly, it seems that a woman can have numerous children to increase her welfare cheque…

This is a recurring thought. Let me point out, then, that abortion is legal in Canada, and that neglected children remain. How can this be? If abortion is legal and accessible, shouldn’t the problem of “unwanted” children be solved? However, the number of children in foster care increases exponentially every year. (There are currently over 76,000 children in foster care in Canada.)

Let’s face facts. Abortion has not created a society where “every child [is] a wanted child,” as the Planned Parenthood slogan goes. Rates of child abuse and numbers of foster-children have only increased since legal abortion became part of our national profile.

Is it safe for me to say, as it has been suggested many times before, that abortion has offered a skewed view of the value of children within our society? Could it be that our country has it all wrong? Maybe, just maybe, devaluing unborn children has caused Canada to under-appreciate the value of all children. Who dares call that a scare tactic?

___________________

Andrea adds: That same letter writer says this:

The CCBR website offers a number of convincing but fundamentally wrong arguments. When anti-abortion gimmicks stop, and pro-life rationale presents itself in the abortion debate, I will be on board…

Really? For years and years and years the pro-life movement has been offering nothing but a sound rationale–reasoning up and down the block, reasoning that runs circles around pro-choice arguments. That letter writer may take issue with the Genocide Awareness Project; I know many reasonable people who do. But she says she’s on board if only pro-lifers could present arguments “minus the propaganda.” Well, this is her lucky day: I can personally refer her to any number of pro-life groups that do nothing but that, and have done so, day in, day out for years on end.

Spring rant

by Leave a Comment

It must be spring. Calls for nominations of women of influence for various awards seem to be blooming in all my ladies’ magazines. Calls for applications for various fellowships and other Gold Medals awarded to “outstanding graduating students” are raining down at McGill. I seem to stumble on “most influential woman under 30” and “young person of the year” awards everywhere. Maybe this is just a reflection of my own insecurities. Maybe this is one of the reasons women are delaying childbirth and having fewer children: Our society burns the fuel of external recognition and motherhood provides very little of that. At this point, I’m not quite sure which of the two needs fixing: my insecurities or the world. Likely both.

At the risk of being offered some cheese with my whine, seeing a beautiful, single, 30-year-old career woman receive an achievement award makes me in equal part depressed, envious and somewhat bitter. All the more if she fits in size four pants, but I digress. This is in no small part due to the fact that I am a married, 34-year-old mother of five who will never again fit into size four designer pants unless I get morbidly sick.

Newly minted with a Master’s degree, I am looking for a job with a resume that is, well, very similar to what it was when I graduated from high school in 1992. Odd jobs, volunteer work, you know what I mean? I resent the fact that I have to remind myself that the subtext of my threadbare resume is “five children.” I have to remind myself that getting a Master’s degree while caring for a household of seven is worth a Gold Medal even though I will never get one. I have to remind myself that my utter lack of professional experience and connections is the cost of committing the last 12 years of my life to carrying, delivering and raising five little persons. And finally, I have to remind myself that if I never get an achievement award but if my children grow into “competent, responsible, considerate, and generous men and women who are committed to live by principles of integrity” (to quote writer James Stenson ) , I will have been successful beyond measure.

But today, I resent having to remind myself. Because it should be obvious and it is not. I don’t think that putting professional aspirations on hold while children are very young is a bad thing. However, women should be able to reintegrate into the workplace post-bambino without feeling like 5, 10, 15 years of their lives have gone the way of the dodo. If we want women to go forth and reproduce, we have our work cut out convincing them that they will not just disappear under a pile of housework. That’s just one of the ways in which being pro-life starts by being pro-woman.

_____________________

muti-hued-tulips.jpg

Andrea adds some spring flowers to accompany the spring rant, a very fine rant, Véronique, and I do agree–it ought to be obvious that what you are doing is worthy of a gold medal. In the interim, before attitudes change, some flowers.

_____________________

Tanya adds: A woman has such a peculiar role to attempt to fill in today’s western society. Stay-at-home mothers are sacrificing their dreams and financial security for the sake of family. (Oh! what noble martyrs we are.) Career women sacrifice their families for their own personal goals. (Images of a briefcase wielding woman who missed her child’s soccer game come to mind?) For the most part we are either pitied or scorned by others (and sometimes ourselves). I suppose we should start by fixing our own insecurities if we want the world to view us any differently. (We can’t fix the world if we’re broken.) I’d say we need to reasonably adopt the mantra, “If mom is happy, then everyone’s happy.”

Joyce Arthur resigns on Bill C-484?

by Leave a Comment

More on Bill C-484, the unborn victims of violence bill, here.  

[Joyce] Arthur described the bill as “lingering sexism”, and said anti-abortion arguments all stem from a patriarchal view of women. “They think a fetus should have some rights, there’s too many abortions, it’s used as birth control,” Arthur said. “They feel the law should be making these decisions. But only a pregnant women [sic] can be making these decisions. Is this a blob to her, or a person?

Joyce Arthur appears to have signed her own resignation slip with that statement, because to the women who were attacked and lost their babies, the baby was a baby, a person, not a blob. Case closed–in Arthur’s world too, then, Bill C-484 should stand.

Mr. Mom

by Leave a Comment

pregnantman.jpg

A woman who underwent a transgender transformation to become a man is pregnant. The child is due to be born this July. Read more here.

Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant. To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child … I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.”

After all, family is whatever you want it to be in this day and age.

[Ethicist Margaret Somerville] added: “It’s a very touchy thing, this deconstruction of our biological reality and the institutions that have existed across all kinds of societies over thousands and thousands of years to establish stability, respect and certainty. I think we’re just playing with fire.”

When progressives want to restrict choice

by Leave a Comment

Interesting piece about private daycare operators in various parts of the country… who are being targeted by the Left for being bad ugly people who use children to make a profit. Or something; it’s hard to understand exactly what it is that the NDP’s Olivia Chow objects to, since even state-sanctioned not-for-profit daycare centres employ people who make money caring for children. But anyway. Ms. Chow, whose private member bill “would commit Ottawa to a national daycare plan and deny funding to any new for-profit centre”, seems reasonably certain that “private” money is somehow worse than the “public” kind. (Though I agree with her when she says that “Tax dollars should not be going to a company’s bottom line” – it’s just that I would apply that principle across the board, not just against companies I don’t like.)   

But that’s not what got my attention. What really grabbed me is right in the first paragraph:

Private sector daycare is under attack in many parts of the country, with vocal opponents claiming that earning a profit is fundamentally at odds with proper child care. [emphasis added]

Isn’t that what people used to say about health care?  That it was wrong to make a profit caring for sick people? That it would be better if the state took over?

We all know how well that turned out, do we.

_______________________

Tanya remarks: “Tax dollars should not be going to a company’s bottom line.”  Oh, like the bottom line for an organization like Planned Parenthood, say? 

Have a good one

by Leave a Comment

Today, March 25, is “National Back Up Your Birth Control Day,” south of the border. Celebrate by getting Plan B emergency contraception at a great discount. Read more here.

No mention as to whether they’ll be giving out balloons and cotton candy.

Plan B emergency contraception provides a larger dose of the same hormones found in birth control pills…

Those hormones are estrogen and progesterone. Don’t worry, though. I’m sure it isn’t the same estrogen and progesterone which have been shown in extended doses to contribute to coronary heart disease and invasive breast cancer, just to name a few.

As part of this momentous celebration, Planned Parenthood will also be “lobbying members of Congress to permit over-the-counter access to EC regardless of age.”

What a proud day for women everywhere! Ladies, mark your calendars. This is something to be sure to celebrate every year.

______________________

Andrea adds: It is very difficult to view unfettered access to Plan B for any age as being pro-woman and on this it really doesn’t matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. Many of the women using Plan B repeatedly are young girls–not women. Marketing the morning-after pill like this makes it sound as though it’s a piece of cake. You take a pill, et voila! your problem disappears. But many girls can’t tolerate those high doses of hormones and end up throwing up. At which point, one can’t be sure the pill stayed down. So back for a second over-the-counter dose. Repeat the agony, which is heightened because you are alone (no doctor’s supervision is the whole point). That’s not health care. That’s a joke.

____________________

Andrea adds again: It’s also International Day of the Unborn Child. I’ll admit though, that whether on my side or the other side, “International Days” of most kinds don’t thrill me. I gather this day aims to change our culture, to recognize and accept the unborn, and I’m glad.

The day was expressly started on the Feast of the Annunciation, making this particular day for the unborn more or less a Roman Catholic celebration. That’s not to say it couldn’t broaden out, but I firmly believe we need all peoples and faiths to join the fight against abortion, and I’m not sure that linking pro-life events to Roman Catholic holy days will achieve this goal.  (I’m well aware that other faiths are not exactly out there leading the charge on this one, so I appreciate the RCs doing it.) Some convoluted thoughts then, on this day for the unborn. Would that we lived in a culture where such a day was completely unnecessary.

A legal entity within a legal entity

by Leave a Comment

Does this make any sense? Are the rights of women eroded through government cutbacks? Do regular non-political Canadian women know what Status of Women Canada actually does? And on the “schizophrenia” of Bill C-484… well, have a read. It’s a very, um, interesting take on it.

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert, BQ):
…In the days following International Women’s Day, I must say that it worries me deeply to sit in this Parliament under a Conservative government. I was elected almost four years ago and I have never had to make so many speeches to promote the status of women. This is unusual. I feel like the rug is being pulled out from under us.

It seems to me that this Conservative government is attacking the promotion of the status of women. Some attacks are obvious. The most obvious, of course, are the cuts made to Status of Women Canada, so that the organization would stop promoting the status of women. There have been many other attacks. The most recent is Bill C-484, introduced by a Conservative member, a legislative measure that greatly concerns me. The bill has to do with unborn victims of crime. Under the pretense of protecting fetuses and protecting women, it would give a legal status to the fetus. This could mean sending women to prison for having an abortion. It would turn back the clock on women’s rights by decades.

I am surprised that, as I speak here today in 2008, I am forced to defend women’s equality, to defend women’s bodies and to tell men they must stop trying to legislate on women’s bodies. They cannot simultaneously be a legal entity and have another legal entity inside them. That is schizophrenia. I say this jokingly, but I am really very worried.

________________________

Brigitte adds: Yeah, and women cannot simultaneously be a human being and have another human being inside them. That is schizophrenia… (If that‘s what the opposition manages to come up with, I say we’re winning.)

________________________ 

Tanya points out the obvious: Bill C-484 states: “For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented.”

Carole Lavallée says: “This could mean sending women to prison for having an abortion.”

She may be on to something with this “schizophrenia” concept… there’s definitely some paranoia going on. Elevating the rights of fetuses to a little lower than those of a house-cat has the pro-abortion side “really very worried”? In her place, I’d be more worried about how out of touch with Canadian women I am, since 74% of them are in favour of the bill.

________________________  

Véronique adds: You can go to prison for hurting a house cat. I’m just saying this to preempt comments about Tanya’s comment.  http://cfhs.ca/news/humane_societies_applaud_criminal_code_changes/Anyway… I have a dear friend who suffers from schizophrenia. We go back many years — before she was diagnosed — and she is one of the most courageous person I know. All this to say that for vocabulary’s sake, there is nothing “legal” about whatever lives in my friend’s head. I’m not even sure it’s an entity.And at the risk of sounding like a lawyer, I am a legal entity who lives in a legal entity. That would be my house. Seriously. I’ll spare your intelligence and stop here rather than explain how many legal entities we technically live in. As I’m writing this, I am humming “the head bone’s connected to the, neck bone. The neck bone’s connected to the backbone …”

 

Meta