ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for 2008

Archives for 2008

Conversation with the previous generation

by 3 Comments

Met a lovely 60-something woman last week and we ended up on the issue of woman’s rights on a global scale. I could never have planned to get on such a topic with someone I’d only just met. But there we were, talking, over tea, about the self-oppressive mindsets of women in other countries. Did it ever remind me of this article and this post!

I dared: North American women share in this phenomenon. We are plagued with an awful oppressive social mentality here.

She: What do you mean?

I: Well, unless a couple is actively trying to have a baby, any woman getting pregnant in this country is forced to consider having an abortion.

She (sincerely): A woman can’t be forced to have an abortion. It’s up to her! That’s what we fought for! Who forces her to have an abortion? (Perhaps she thought I’d finger the government for snatching girls out of their beds in the middle of the night to perform abortions on them.)

I: Usually, her mate. Many times, a parent. But it’s to be expected. We, the women of North America, expect to have to make that choice. All too many of us are pressured into having an abortion.

There was obviously far more to this conversation than that. What I learned? Women of that generation watched as their fellow women fought and picketed for easier access to abortion. It was a fight women were fighting passionately and finally won. It was women of the baby boom generation getting their big victory. It seemed to rank alongside victories of the suffragettes at the turn of last century. There’s a feeling of pride in that. There’s sense of camaraderie in that.

The hype is louder than the stories of women coerced into abortion. And coercion can be subtle. If a woman is scared her mate will leave her unless she has an abortion, she’s being coerced. If a woman is made to feel guilty, as though she’s choosing an unborn baby over the man she’s currently with, she’s being coerced. And it’s a silent suffering.

We as women in this country can’t admit to being forced into having an abortion. Abortion is supposed to be about a woman’s choice, and we are all supposed to be strong and independent. Admitting we were coerced is admitting weakness.

And if we went ahead with the pregnancy, we sure can’t tell our story: that’s the new baby’s father or grandparent. Sure makes for awkward family dinners, knowing daddy once wished you’d never be born.

I had dinner with the same lovely lady a few days later. She took me aside and said, pointing to her noggin, “you sure had my wheels turning for hours the other night.”

There’s a conversation to be had. We need to talk about abortion.

You’ve heard of this, no doubt

by Leave a Comment

Well, you likely haven’t–heard of the connection between abortion and subsequent preterm delivery. I have, but I’m the first to admit I’m on one too many abortion-related list serves.

Here, Canadian researchers publish on the link between abortion and preterm delivery. This matters because preterm babies have higher risk of things like cerebral palsy.

The researchers look at the black community in the United States, who have a higher abortion rate and connect it to the subsequent higher risk of preterm delivery.

Interesting, also, is this:

Vacuum aspiration abortions (VAA) have never been shown to be safe in animal studies. Use of a procedure that has not been shown to be safe is a violation of the Nuremberg Code of ethics on human research and experimentation. At a minimum, consent forms for surgical abortions should inform patients of this risk.

Reminds me a bit of Barbara Seaman’s The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed On Women, which discusses how variants on the Pill weren’t adequately tested before being prescribed to women, sometimes with mortal side effects.

Women in Canada think there are no repercussions to having an abortion. It isn’t true, and I wish there was freedom of speech to discuss these things. Why do we (women) stand for being told abortion is our “right”–when not only is that not the case, but there may not even be sufficient medical testing?  

BTW, the study was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. No doubt they are merely a mouthpiece for the pro-life movement.

No suprises here

by 1 Comment

Two new studies out, both showing negative repercussions for women’s mental health after abortion. Both are done by reputable scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals. Here’s the press release for the Fergusson et al study. And here’s the Coleman et al study.

________________________

Tanya adds: The Fergusson study: “Women who have an abortion face a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems”

It then says, with its next breath: “The study found, the overall population effects of abortion on mental health are small.”

What? Nice.

Jean Vanier and making room for the unwanted

by 5 Comments

The Globe and Mail of all places had an interesting exchange on abortion between Ian Brown, who has written about his struggles with his son’s disabilities before, and Jean Vanier, who has also been awarded the Order of Canada for his work.

I am less interested in Ian Brown’s points, if only because he is basically asking a question of Jean Vanier: How could he keep his Order of Canada? (Brown expresses discomfort with abortion, especially the kind that would see his son killed in the womb but then says he can’t get away from a woman’s choice. I would merely suggest “choice” is not a value. “Faith, hope, love and choice, and the greatest of these is choice”? Um, not really.)  

I read Vanier’s thoughts closely. I first read them with sadness and then, as I began to consider them more, with a sense of respect–finally, I came around and thought–this is a type of pro-life discourse that could bring even the uninterested Globe reader around. It is, in the end, pro-life discourse.

In his letter, Vanier says he is keeping his Order of Canada. He doesn’t say abortion is wrong, or evil. There’s also a fair amount of mundane “motherhood and apple pie” statements.

He gets at what make this country great:

It is important that we re-find this identity, that we encourage the young of our land (in whom we should have much hope) to discover the beauty of being Canadians with our own specific culture – peacemakers, people who give life, who become a sign that peace is possible in our world; to discover that our land is called to be a place of welcome not just for wealthy and competent people from other lands but also for refugees, for people from war-torn and poverty-stricken lands.” (emphasis mine)

In short, he is saying that Canada should be a place where the unwanted are welcome. (Even unwanted babies, one could add. )  

He speaks of the sexual urge that “flows from a deep cry of loneliness.” There are few who sleep with someone for the cheap thrills, rather, it is because people are lonely. We all want to be known. We want companionship. And having a baby may be the furthest thing from our minds…

I really agree with him that loneliness is a terrible driver, both of sleeping with someone who doesn’t know you, not really, and then subsequently having an abortion. “And then too often,” he writes, “we see the shame, anger and despair of a woman who finds she is becoming a mother… her anguish makes her seek an abortion.”

I can see this.

“I do not want to say such a person in anguish is a ‘killer’. I would like to walk with her—maybe cry with her.”

Sure, and that’s the point of PWPL. Though I do think I’d like to prevent her from killing, while walking and crying with her. But still, I see his point.

Then he writes, “so we are not in front of something which is either ‘abortion’ or ‘not abortion,’ ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice.’ We are in front of something so much more complex.”

Pro-lifers are in this habit of saying abortion is not complicated, it is all so very simple. They are right, because abortion takes a life, and that is simple. And pro-choicers are in this habit of saying it is all very complex—and they are right, because that is how it feels to the people involved–there are many factors driving her to the clinic.

He then says:

Maybe the real question is: What is the meaning of our life? What does it mean to be human?”

Aha. And that is indeed a good question. I happen to believe if more women asked this, and more people responded appropriately, with encouragement, then we’d see more and more women empowered to “choose life” (understanding that we’d rather not choose killing as a routine course of action). (Too many women in the moment of a crisis are not asking big, philosophical questions, but rather the detailed short-term ones. Can I afford this? Can I finish school? Will he stick around? Do I want him to? etc.)

Anyway, Vanier’s life is compelling, compassionate, and if he doesn’t want to fall into all the ancient, unproductive and shrill rhetoric from both camps—then TRUST ME–I’m AOK with that.

On the notion of keeping the Order of Canada, he says the Order should go to those who “give and foster life.” Vanier sounds like a smart man—he must know that’s not what Morgentaler does. In that sense, he is keeping his Order of Canada perhaps so the Order is not devoid of those who do great things: give and foster life.

I don’t agree, I’d give mine back pronto. (If I had one.) But I see his point—Canada is a great country, and if we have such honours then they might as well be peopled by great men (and women). (Put your knickers back on, my feminist friends, it’s a turn of phrase).

Morgentaler should be the one to go. In due time, I believe he’ll be removed, as we hang our heads and reassess a time in Canadian history where we did not make room, we had no time–for those we chose to call “unwanted”.  

Britain on top in more ways than just one

by Leave a Comment

This article highlights how Britain is top of all western nations for sexual promiscuity. And that, they say, is a good thing for women’s rights and equality:

Britain’s ranking was ascribed to factors such as the decline of religious scruples about extramarital sex, the growth of equal pay and equal rights for women and a highly sexualised popular culture.

Just off the top of my head, there are other areas where Britain is on top, too: family breakdown, dropout rates, generational welfare dependency, high rates of single parenting, indebtedness and drug addictions. I believe their youth gang rates are also on the rise.

 But I’m sure none of these things are connected. Way to go Britain. And thank goodness for “women’s rights,” as expressed by men (in this case, David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois) who slap wildly inaccurate interpretations on top of devastating research results.

Washington DC in pictures

by 1 Comment

ProWomanProLife advances to next round

by 4 Comments

Will wonders never cease? We’ve advanced to the final five in the Best New Blog category at the Canadian Blog Awards.

Thank you to all those who voted. 

Now seems as good a time as any to come clean: I’m in this for the accolades. The recognition. (I don’t mean to show off, but I got free passes to see Bella. Yes, that’s right. Free.)

So if you’d like to vote for us again to become BEST new Blog, not just one of five–you can do so here.

Too drunk to walk

by 1 Comment

Too drunk to walk

Great news:

Drunk women who stagger about in high heels are to be protected – at public expense – from twisting their ankles.

They will be handed flip-flops to wear by police outside nightclubs as they wend their way home.

[…] the potential recipients seemed quite pleased yesterday at the prospect of a free pair of flops.

Danielle Bolton, 19, who was out in Torquay, said: ‘My heels hurt me at the end of the night so I tend to take them off.

‘It’s a hell of a lot easier to walk with flip-flops than high heels.’

Leanne Thomas, 21, added: ‘I go out clubbing at the harbourside most weekends and I usually walk home barefooted because my heels hurt. I think it’s a great idea.’

Ah, liberation.

[h/t Mark Steyn]

______________________________

Rebecca adds: In a country where people pull their own teeth with pliers rather than wait years for dental care (imagine going to a dentist where dental insurance is run like health insurance in Canada) and there is a waiting list to get into an ER waiting room, because in order to meet performance targets, patients aren’t triaged until admin knows they’ll be treated quickly, it’s good to know that chronic barflies will find it easier to stagger home. If it weren’t for government flip-flops they might develop some calluses which would ruin their round heels. A most excellent use of the British police.

Thank you

by 3 Comments

Thank you to these academics for weighing in on a matter not intimately connected with their work or interests–in defense of the freedom of expression of the University of Calgary pro-life club. I think it helps when longstanding, respectable professors make a statement like this.

The university would never order an activist animal rights group that might display pictures of animals bleeding, suffering or dead to turn its pictures inward. Nor would the university censor or threaten antiwar activists for posting pictures of those burnt alive in Hiroshima or Dresden by Allied bombs. The more likely response would be that such images show the end results of past personal and political decisions. The university would likely argue such depictions might make some uncomfortable, but that’s the point of a university: to question, analyze and debate about one’s own assumptions and morality, as well as that of others.

It’s not that the display is graphic, it’s not that it is controversial–we see that on campus all the time.

It’s because it’s about abortion, and we have an unreasonable fear about grappling with this injustice as it occurs around us, day in, day out. It’s not a feel-good moment to realize we are as a country and as a society perpetuating an injustice RIGHT NOW and that’s what this display shows so many. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary to offend people. That’s the way I see it, anyhow.

_____________________________

Brigitte is struggling: I don’t like any of this. I don’t like GAP images. Yes, I forced myself to look at them (and many other horrifying things), and I challenge every pro-choicer to do the same. But I hate it when people shove those images in my face without some kind of warning. That doesn’t mean I’m against every single one of their public displays. I just want some warning, and a chance to look away – which is especially necessary in a public space where young children might suddenly be confronted with something for which they are not prepared, or for which their parents wish to prepare them differently – for instance, by not starting with bloody and extremely disturbing images. Not the case here: A university campus is not the same as just any city street. Still, I don’t like the displays.

That said, I also don’t like the double standard. If disturbing and bloody images are out, then there’s no room for PETA posters [warning: don’t click on this link if you’re eating lunch], to pick one easy example at random.

I don’t want anybody to shove bloody images into people’s faces without warning. But given that some people are allowed to do it for the cause they believe in, should it be OK to allow it for other people who do it for a cause that is, let’s just say, less popular with those who make the rules?

I honestly don’t know.

_________________________________

Andrea adds: You know, Brigitte, I hear you. I was motivated to act on this whole issue of abortion by a presentation by Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform which was about an hour long and involved her talking at length about the history of social injustice, how certain reform movements were motivated by visuals as in the case of Emmett Till, who was murdered brutally and whose mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral. She simultaneously, as she spoke, showed the pictures, and that was the first time I saw a video of an abortion. So I maintain some concern that without the lengthy sit down discussion, the pictures are merely inflammatory and distancing, furthermore, that because we see so many terribly graphic images these days, that a new set will have little to no impact. Who doesn’t see blood and gore every night on your average crime show? We don’t live in Emmett Till’s age anymore. 

BUT–These photos jar people into noticing that every day we kill people, and that’s what they are, and we call it something else, be it reproductive rights or choice or what have you. We actually view abortion as compassionate, quite far away from viewing it as a social injustice. Abortion is something that breaks women and communities down, is both the result of distress and causes more… We are so far away from viewing abortion this way, that I’m pretty much in favour of every pro-life effort.

For people with kids–who are faced with these photos–the only thing I can think of is to use it as a teachable moment, which you are going to encounter at just about every corner these days (think of American Apparel, HandM ads, think TV any night of the week).

I resent the Abortion Distortion–graphic ads re. animal abuse are AOK. If we extended even half the concern this society feels about animals (and I’m not saying that is wrong, at all) to people, well…

Stephanie Gray certainly does get a lot of “converts” should you want to call them that, and I count myself among them. Give that woman an auditorium every night of the week, I say. If people would put down their fair-trade lattés and come, is the question.

Meta