ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for 2008

Archives for 2008

Let me in on the secret

by Leave a Comment

I have at least three friends–who are pro-life stalwarts and really love Obama. I want to know what they know. 

Read this in yesterday’s Post. 

President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to unite the country, but a promise he has made on abortion rights threatens to fan the flames of a ferocious culture war and herald “one of the most divisive periods in American history.” Mr. Obama said during his campaign that one of his first acts as president would be to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that both supporters and opponents say would go far beyond the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in 1973.

I don’t personally believe the first act Obama signs will be the Freedom of Choice Act, as he has said it will be. If it is, with all that is going on in the world, then he’s a fool. And while I’m sure Obama is not pro-life, I’m also sure he’s not a fool.

Is that what 6 months buys you these days?

by 3 Comments

Wife abuser sentenced to six months. Woman’s subjugation ‘appalling’ judge says.

6 months for an ‘appalling’ crime, I thought? Can’t be that appalling. But read on and if you have a stomach for abuse and cruelty, you will have to agree that the abuse the woman suffered was truly appalling. Am I the only one to think that six months imprisonment is a joke in light of the circumstances?

I was wondering… What if the same man had inflicted the same violence to a by-stander — man or woman — on the street, in a club, or on a bike path? Regardless of the fact that such violence all in one dose would likely have killed the recipient; do you think the man would have gotten away with 6 months imprisonment had the victim not been his wife? So what are the attenuating circumstances? He knew the woman? She thought it was okay? She tolerated it? He managed not to kill her?

And then what? Will 6 months in jail turn him into a respectful man or a loving husband? Will the woman be better off once her husband returns after 6 months in jail?

So many questions. So little time.

What the Lakehead University pro-life club accomplished

by Leave a Comment

Reporting live here from Thunder Bay. I gave a little talk to a dinner audience last night, here at the Thunder Bay pro-life conference. I mentioned at the dinner that freedom of speech and winning hearts and minds toward the pro-life cause go hand in hand. This is why it is a major strategy of the student unions to ban or limit the clubs. (The pro-life message, done well, is very compelling so the best thing to do is ensure it doesn’t get out there.) 

I mentioned that it takes a great deal of courage for pro-life students to stand up to the student union bullies. I’d like to really stress this: it takes more courage than you think. You are young, trying to get a degree, taking on an unpopular cause… it’s not outside the realm of the possible that some professor decides you shouldn’t pass. Or then there’s just the social climate in which you are living and breathing. Needless to say, back when I was a student, I didn’t have that courage and didn’t involve myself in this type of club activities. 

These guys have garnered a lot of mainstream media–simply because they were willing to be vocal. And that does everyone a service, and provides an example. 

As for the conference, I only arrived close to the end of the day yesterday, and things are just starting today. On that note, I’m off to get ready for the day.

About the religiously secular

by 4 Comments

Oh dear, Andrea. How right you are. I’m talking about your comment to my earlier post, below, re some libertarian types who can get quite a bit religious about their non-religion. And I don’t mean that in a good way.

Maybe Tanya is right; perhaps there are only 27 people like me – folks who mostly side with the religious social conservatives on the issues but who are not religious. And are not about to be, either; I’m not areligious because I never experienced life in the Church – quite the opposite. I don’t know. But I hope not to be mistaken for a militantly secular libertarian just because I’m not religious.

I was quite excited about a week ago when I heard that a few guys were starting a new blog called Secular Right. I thought I’d found a new home; I thought they were going to discuss conservative ideas and ideals more or less like we discuss life issues here at PWPL – without justifying our positions on the Gospel. But so far, that’s not what SR is doing. They seem more intent on demonstrating that religion is somehow inferior to reason, as though the two were necessarily mutually exclusive. I find that annoying.

It doesn’t have to be that way. There ought to be some room between the oogedy-boogedy and the dry (and aggressive) libertarian brand of militant secularism.

Oh well. It’s early in the morning and I’ve got to dash out for a couple of hours, so who knows what’ll await me when I log in again this afternoon.

Happy Saturday morning, everyone. Hey, Andrea, how’s Thunder Bay?

_____________________________

Andrea adds: On numbers–it could just be me, but my world has always been made up of vast numbers of secular conservatives/libertarians, making very clever comparisons between those who oh, say, support traditional marriage and racists in the deep south. (No word of a lie–wow did I ever wish I was somewhere else for that particular luncheon.) I tell ya–I got stories. (And back to the Super Annoying Religious Christian–Brigitte, most people are areligious because they have an experience with the church, not because they never went. Back in the day, I do believe it was those sitting in the pews who convinced me that I didn’t want to.)

What I’m reading these days

by 2 Comments

(The title might better be “What is on my night stand these days” but let’s not quibble over details.)

This idea is stolen from Paul Tuns over at Sobering Thoughts. I see your good idea, Paul, and I up you one, by providing a visual of my teetering reading pile.

Starting at the top: there’s Edith Wharton–the last novella I read was really very good–called “Old Maid”–please hold your very, very funny jokes on whether that has anything to do with yours truly; next, a Chesterton compilation; next, a travel New Testament; after that, just your standard, run-of-the-mill Moravian Liturgy, (no need to explain that because everyone has one, no?); then, the inspirational biography of William Wilberforce; Culture Shift by Mohler–alas, I’ve never cracked that one open but there it is; two books on pro-life feminism, thanks to Toronto Right to Life after I gave a talk; The Complete Novels of Jane Austen–who I am told, I should like. (Should being the operative word there. By the time I’ve figured who is who and why I care, well, I’m asleep faster than you can say “Moravian Liturgy”.) Care of the Soul was a quick purchase. I thought I was getting Thomas More when actually I was getting Thomas Moore, a not inconsequential difference of a couple hundred years. Finally, no time like the present to learn some Canadian history with Right Honourable Men by Michael Bliss.

Oogedy-boogediness

by Leave a Comment

The things you learn. For instance, that there is such a thing as a “bloxicon”. Cute.

This here is the latest in one branch of the “whither conservatism” debate (call it the G-D subdebate). It may be me, but I’m having some trouble following her argument. Seems to be going back and forth a bit, without ever coming out and saying simply what seems to be her point: That religious zealots make her skin crawl. (The closest she gets is: “It isn’t so much God causing the GOP problems; it’s his fan club.”)

I know how it’s like. A lot of them make mine do exactly that, as I’ve explained before. I’m not against religion, but I tend not to associate with those who can’t resist talking about it even when religion isn’t anywhere near the subject at hand. I don’t mind sharing a political philosophy with the religious, not one bit. But it’s true that some of them aren’t always helping the cause with their presentation (sort of like Stéphane Dion that way).

But here’s the thing I don’t get: If, say, the GOP (or here, the Tories) did shed their oogedy-boogedy types, but kept conservatives who, like me, do not use religion to explain their position on social policy, would it really make these parties more acceptable to more moderate voters? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure pro-choicers don’t care why I’m against abortion. They only care that I’m against abortion.

Yes, religion is here to stay. So are the religious, whether I like them or not. I can’t keep them out of my political philosophy, and they sure can’t exclude me either. We just have to learn to co-exist nicely. Find common grounds (for instance: it’s wrong to terminate the lives of innocent and vulnerable beings not just because life is a gift from God but because no society where the weak and innocent aren’t protected can call itself civilized) and move from there.

Wouldn’t that be more useful than arguing over which one of us has the best neologism for the bloxicon?

____________________________

Andrea adds: I’ve had my fair share of run ins with overzealous Christians, to be sure. (My favourite was on campus, when a girl sat down next to me and asked me if I was Christian. I said yes. She said, really? And proceeded with her spiel anyway. One thing worse than someone trying to convert you is someone testing you because they don’t believe you are already converted… But I digress.) In my experience, secular libertarians aren’t always exactly hootin’ hollering fun. They feel absolutely zero impetus to clamp down on the God is Dead rhetoric—and what with the zeitgeist being on their side and all, continue through by making progressively more idiotic comparisons between God and Santa Claus, fairy tales, imaginary friends, religion is bad/manipulative for children! Bla bla bla. You can often barely get a word in, not even to slide in an excuse to get away, say to the loo. We have to get over it. People are people. And there are strange ones on every team.

That was a long-winded way of saying yes, we do all have to get along.

_______________________________

Tanya chuckles a little: But see, Brigitte, the thing is that you’re a minority here. A non-religious conservative? What are there, like 27 of you?

I agree that it’s hardest of all to get along with the oogedy-boogedy ones, but there are a heck of alot of them. I’ve been referred to as oogedy-boogedy myself a few times…what can you do? Stick to your guns and try to come off less creepy next time, I guess. (But, alas, one man’s creepy is another man’s…you get the gist of it.)

Why I’m going to Thunder Bay

by 4 Comments

Because of nonsense like this:

Clubs at Lakehead University must make their messages “positive,” cannot be seen to be offensive or disparaging and they are not allowed to impose their views on anyone else, new amendments to the student union constitution say. …

But a campus anti-abortion group, which has been trying to gain official status since 2007, believes the new rules make it impossible for them to ever spread their message effectively — even if they ever did get club status.

“[The student union is] working to create a simple happy world, where expressing a single critical thought that may upset anyone is banned, and where [student union] will be the final arbiter of what is acceptable,” said a release from Lakehead Life Support this week.

The new amendments state:

* “Campaigns must be positive in nature and cannot slander the opposing stance of the campaign.”
* “All club publications shall not have content that may be deemed as offensive or in bad taste to any identifiable group.”
* “Members of the club are not allowed to impose belief(s) or practice(s) of the club to anyone who does not give them consent to outside of the club’s meetings.”

Isn’t academic freedom grand?

I’d say drop in on the conference if you are “in the area” but another reason why I really wanted to go and support these students when they asked is because, let’s face it, who is ever in the area of Thunder Bay?

On a side note, I’ve always loved Terry Fox and I am going to see his memorial.

___________________________________

Rebecca adds: Homeschooling is all well and good, but what we really need is home-universitying. I need to start saving up for Claremont College tuition.

“Women’s rights” in crisis

by 3 Comments

From time to time in this current political mess, someone will toss the phrase “women’s rights” into the mix. Apparently, in saying that government employees can’t go to Human Rights Tribunals over pay equity disputes, the Harper government is against women’s rights. I think that’s what it is about, anyway. Hard to tell. Why? Because those people bandying about the phrase don’t have a sweet clue either. They never explain, and I’ve not heard a reporter ask for or offer clarification. Fortunately, however, they don’t need a sweet clue. Because paying lip service to “women’s rights” is all they want to do.

Look, one thing I won’t do on this blog is pretend to represent all women. So let me say this for myself. I’d really love the government to stop funding “women’s rights.” I want Status of Women Canada to lose every tax dollar it gets. I’d love it if the “women’s caucus” stopped defending things like “gender-based analysis.” I will never even bother reading The Pink Book. 

I don’t represent all women. So I find it fascinating when others speak up for–wait for it–me. Why–Ed Broadbent did so just the other morning on a local Ottawa CBC show. The Conservatives are against “women’s rights”, says he. But just what might those rights be? The right to unionized jobs? The right to be defended by him? So kind of him–I’ll invite him to tea and we can chat about a coalition of women’s defence. I’m sure he, maybe with Duceppe and Dion can swing it.  

“Women’s rights” indeed. Are you buying it?

Duh, what’s going on?

by 4 Comments

Please forgive the recent hiatus. I was busy plotting birthday parties (there’s triple-chocolate cheesecake involved, is all I can say) and – oh yeah – getting some work done. You know. Work. The kind that helps pay the bills.

Anyway.

I haven’t had much time or energy to pay attention to the ongoing Parliament Hill saga. Apparently, there’s talk of a coalition to replace the Tories. Unless of course enough people wake up in time and realize Stephen Harper has managed, once again, to trap his hapless opponents. I don’t particularly like Mr. Harper. But I sure don’t believe he’d be dumb enough to get himself trapped by Messrs. Dion and Co.

Re-anyway. I am not particularly upset by any of this. For one thing, it’s not exactly surprising (not even the part where the Bloc gets to play a major supporting role; all parties have explored similar possibilities). And whether it happens or not, things aren’t likely to change. The only kind of government this country ever gets is the socially liberal, big spending kind. There isn’t one political party that speaks to me. Not one. But they all want to reach into my wallet to pay for things I don’t like – yes, very much including the Tories, who spend more these days than anybody ever did.

Seriously; is there any reason for someone like me to care one way or the other? I’m having real trouble thinking of any, but I’d like to know what our readers have to say.

__________________________

Andrea adds: I’m a “reader” of sorts. Read this blog religiously, actually. Mostly looking for typos and such, spiffing it up here and there… anyhoo. Never miss a chance to express your opinion, I say.

I care because while Harper didn’t prove to be small-c conservative at all, there’s not an economy out there that the NDP didn’t successfully tank. They have a proven track record, so to speak. That leaves me concerned for all kinds of things–but mostly for the poor, those living on the margins, those who lose their jobs and are left with nothing but an NDP-sponsored government handout. My second point: Harper caused this (I recently mused whether youthful inexperience is actually a hiring requirement in the PMO). But is the removal of government subsidies for parties–a firing offence? Not sure.

Why you should continue not to care–on the other hand. Because this will all come to an election sooner or later. Carry on with your cheesecake (sounds delicious). (And paying work. I’ve heard of that. Gotta go.)

________________________

Rebecca adds: I am also having trouble caring, which is unusual given my politics junkie status. Frankly I don’t like any of the players very much right now. Duceppe is the only one actually representing the interests of his constituency; I guess it’s our loss that Canada isn’t part of his constituency.

I’m chiefly curious to find out how much of this is part of a Rovian Grand Plan by Harper, and how much is wild flailing. A lawyer of whom I’m fond (they do exist) is of the opinion that “Harper speared himself, is frantically trying to pull out the harpoon, and may take constitutional democracy down with him.” I’ve also heard from people much more plugged in than I am that this has been in the offing since well before the October 14th election, which wouldn’t surprise me – as Brigitte says, all political parties scheme this way – but does mean that Harper’s real error was in giving the clowns an opening, not in committing some offense so grave that the three parties united to restore harmony, balance and Coke in the water fountains.

The larger lesson here, one of them anyway, is that minority governments are awful, and coalitions are worse. With the rise of the BQ and the Greens, they might be here to stay, and if (ftu ftu ftu) there’s another conservative schism, we’ll be permanently consigned to the ranks of unstable democracies that hold election every 18 months, like Israel and Italy.

Meta