ProWomanProLife

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

Archives for August 2008

I’ll tell you what I think is really, really scary

by Leave a Comment

I have a low level of appreciation for pornography in the public square. (You can click here to see the offending ad campaign–I’m not going to post the photo.) Especially when it masquerades as “female creativity.” I’m glad I’m not the only one. Many thanks to Ms. Batsheva Capek–and I don’t know her, or who she is–for spearheading an effort to get this ad down. We need people on the street who recognize porn for what it is. We also need people to boycott American Apparel, whose “CEO” has been very public about using a 1970s-style porn-look to sell your 16-year-old t-shirts. The Globe reports about the story, here.

In New York City, the same ad ended up with the words “Gee, I wonder why women get raped?” written over it. It was then replaced. But the company says this:

“It is a little bit disconcerting to see what feminism has evolved into,” said Marsha Brady, one of American Apparel’s two creative directors… “When … there’s a group of people attempting to shame female creativity, female beauty, female pride under the auspices of protecting women, it’s really, really scary.”

You know what is more scary? Those who think these ads represent female creativity, female beauty or female pride.

Ponnuru on Biden on abortion

by 1 Comment

For those of you eager to hear something encouraging about the U.S. presidential campaign: A post at the Corner about Joe Biden’s stance on abortion, which appears slightly less extreme than that of Barack Obama.

For pro-lifers, there is one tiny hopeful sign in the Biden pick. For a long time now, the top ranks of the Democratic party have embraced an orthodoxy on abortion policy that includes support for taxpayer funding of it and for keeping partial-birth abortion legal. The Democratic platform supports taxpayer funding. The three top contenders in this year’s Democratic presidential primaries—Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards—support both taxpayer funding and partial-birth abortion.

Since partial-birth abortion became a political issue during Bill Clinton’s first term in office, every Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominee has supported keeping it legal (or making it illegal in name with loopholes to keep it legal in practice). When Gore considered running with Evan Bayh in 2000, feminist leaders told reporters that he was unacceptable because he had voted against partial-birth abortion.

This time the feminists said very little as Obama considered Bayh and Biden. For the first time in many years, the Democrats have a candidate for national office who opposes taxpayer funding of abortion. For the first time since partial-birth abortion became an issue, they have a candidate who opposes it, too. It is a less important development, I think, than the fact that their presidential nominee believes that some forms of infanticide should be legal. But it strikes me nonetheless as progress, however painfully limited.

Calling all journalists

by 1 Comment

To me, there’s a story behind the story here: The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons didn’t just change their policy and decide to force doctors’ hands at a whim. Recall the Canadian Medical Association Journal guest editorial of July 2006. It was co-written by Jocelyn Downie and Sanda Rodgers. Jocelyn Downie had been appointed to advise the interim board of the CMAJ–a lawyer, she was, not a doctor, and a lawyer who advocates for decriminalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, alongside her pro-abortion views (death all round, but let me not digress). Questions: How did she get appointed to the CMAJ interim advisory board? Why was she allowed to guest write an editorial? What are these two doing today? Do they have influence over the Ontario College?

It’s likely the same people who voted against Bill C-484 at the CMA.

There are only limited numbers of radical pro-abortion types, but they have loud voices, and lots of power, as I learned sitting in the law faculty for the Morgentaler conference in January 2008. That’s not a conspiracy theory, or some mild assertion: When you are the dean of the faculty of the country’s preeminent law school, you have a little bit of influence. (Dean Moran welcomed all of us to the Morgentaler conference, lest you have any doubt as to where her conscience lies–and she’s still allowed to use it these days).

Bottom line: Who is responsible for this Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons draft policy? Who is guiding the CMA? Hey–a little bit of investigative journalism never hurt anyone.

It’s not every day…

by Leave a Comment

…that I agree with Stéphane Dion. But he’s right about this:

Stéphane Dion has challenged the prime minister to clarify his view on abortion, threatening to reignite the debate as Canada careens towards an election.

[…]

“I think all Canadians have the right to know what the party leader thinks,” he said. “I gave my opinion. I want to hear the opinion of Stephen Harper.”

_______________________________

And Andrea is staying true to form: and disagreeing with Dion. He only wants to know Harper’s stance on abortion now because he’s bought into the misinformation on Bill C-484, which expressly excludes abortion. Voting in favour of Bill C-484 is not a vote against abortion, much as Joyce Arthur would have us believe. If I thought that–I’d blog about it more often. In any event, all we’d get from Harper at this stage would be Ye Olde “I support a woman’s right to choose” too, and given the circumstances, I wouldn’t expect any different. Now if Dion weren’t asking, and if Harper were to clarify under different circumstances…that’s a different story. Then, yes, I’d like to know his stance on abortion. As it stands, I’d prefer Dion clarify his position, on, oh say, the environment. Or finances. Or just about any existing policy debate… where to begin…

Missing: conscience and intelligence at leadership level

by Leave a Comment

A new take on the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons draft policy: perhaps whoever wrote that need not be too concerned about ensuring doctors don’t reference their religion or conscience–at the leadership level, those are already missing. Today the papers report that the Canadian Medical Association voted to condemn Bill C-484.

the Canadian Medical Association voted yesterday to oppose Bill C-484, “and any legislation that would result in compromising access for women to the medical services required to terminate a pregnancy.”

Now I’m joking, of course, most doctors are concerned only about patient welfare, and they have a conscience and they thankfully use it and all that jazz. But now might just be the time for doctors to be concerned about their leadership. I would hazard to say it is all the same people who are writing pro-abortion editorials for the Canadian Medical Association Journal, who are creating anti-conscience policies, and who are voting against Bill C-484. Doctors–if you don’t agree with this and want to continue practicing, in spite of the doctor shortage and your overflowing waiting rooms, I’d take some time to write some letters and understand the politics of this. I personally have been waiting for one appointment for seven months–a day or two more won’t kill me. (I’m pretty sure.)

One woman’s necessity is another woman’s luxury

by Leave a Comment

It’s tough to have kids: We can’t afford ’em, and apparently, don’t really even want ’em.

And doing without things most Canadians consider necessities — everything from giant TVs and laptops to restaurant outings and recreational toys — is tough to swallow in an increasingly consumerist society.

Confusing necessities and luxuries isn’t fatal, I guess, except in the cases when women choose abortion because they couldn’t afford to have a child. For some women, being destitute is a real problem. For others, I say, enjoy the flat screen TV–but will it still be as entertaining when you’re old?

What does freedom mean?

by Leave a Comment

Speak out against the conscience-free doctor.

Two good letters in the Post today on the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons policy fiasco: Dr. Leiva and Faye Sonier of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. She writes:

Lorne Gunter says, “freedom often isn’t easy.” Former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Brian Dickson stated: “If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not have otherwise chosen, he is not acting of his own volition and he cannot be said to be truly free.”

Sorry–no can do–above my pay grade

by Leave a Comment

You can say that? That’s awesome. Now everytime the media/my boss/friends/parents ask me a question that might require thought I have a pat reply in my back pocket.

But his support of abortion, a non-negotiable issue for many conservative Christians, remains a considerable obstacle, and he drew disapproving noises from the 2,800 audience at the Saddleback mega-church in Lake Forest, when he gave an evasive response to the question of when human rights begin following conception.

“Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” said Mr Obama.

Again (broken record alert): One of the ways to support abortion is to put your head in the sand and pretend you just don’t know what’s going on in there–what’s that body part called–a uterus? Goldangit, it’s just so complicated.

This actually works for many, I might add.
________________________
What works for Brigitte: The story adds that:

Mr McCain, who has always been against abortion, in contrast gave a swift response: “At the moment of conception”. He won a loud round of applause.

And since then, my shares in a Republican winner-take-all scenario have increased slightly. I’m gambling on the University of Iowa’s electoral futures market for the first time this year; we’re using real money and while I’m no particular fan of John McCain I think he will win. One of my reasons for believing Mr. McCain will win is Mr. Obama’s extreme position on abortion. Not my main reason, but a significant one. Wouldn’t that be a hoot to make money by gambling on the pro-life side?

___________________________

Andrea adds again: Incidentally, on theological versus scientific perspectives: it’s the science that is particularly clear. New genetic material for every person begins with conception. We’re all former embryos, my friends. I just might even buy the t-shirt.

Meta