Archives for February 2010

Police in New Zealand would like you to know that auctioning off your virginity on a public website is “not a safe practice.”

_____________________

Andrea adds: Come now. Can’t we all agree they’re being just a bit prudish?

Stephen Taylor believes he just found the magic solution:

Here’s what the Conservatives might say about Michael Ignatieff’s flirtation with abortion policy,

“Mr. Ignatieff doesn’t seem to realize that in the past 34 years, we Canadians closed the divisive debate on abortion in this country. This topic has split families and the debate has caused heartache for countless Canadians. We are saddened by Mr. Ignatieff’s attempt to reopen the topic for discussion and to callously use the philosophical debate over life and the exercise of reproductive rights as a political football to be tossed about carelessly.

Mr. Ignatieff we’ve moved past this. We will not allow you to bring the American-style politics of abortion to this country as a wedge issue to divide Canadians.

Canadians that we’re consulting these days are concerned about jobs and the economic recovery. While Mr. Ignatieff wants to hold university style seminar discussions about abortion, we’re focused on phase II of our Economic Action Plan.”

So winning now means giving up? Orwell would be proud.

The beauty of Canadian abortion politics (bet you never thought you’d read “beauty” and “abortion politics” in the same sentence) is that they have always been very non-partisan. There are pro-lifers scattered about in every party. Did Michael Ignatieff just change the game by declaring his party to be the party of abortion rights? Will be interesting to see just who has to do the backpedalling here, and my guess is it’s not going to be the Conservatives. Tons of faithful Catholics vote Liberal. Or they used to, anyway.

Here’s a good piece about this, with plenty of good quotes:

By bringing abortion into a discussion where it had not previously been, and then making it a key element, Mr. Ignatieff seemed to go much further, says Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist and former campaign manager for the Conservative party. “Of all the issues that you could possibly raise about women’s health, why would you start with abortion?” Mr. Flanagan says. “What kind of mindset is that that you have to start killing unborn babies in order to help people? It seems to be based on the now discredited theory that poverty in the Third World is based on overpopulation. I don’t think any serious scholar believes that anymore.”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It appears that abortion in the Liberal ranks just moved from necessary evil to irrevocable right. I don’t think the majority are comfortable that.

Or so it seems, from this research:

Patients left in a “vegetative” state after suffering devastating brain damage are able to understand and communicate, groundbreaking research suggests.

Experts using brain scans have discovered for the first time that the victims, who show no outward signs of awareness, can not only comprehend what people are saying to them but also answer simple questions.

They were able to give yes or no responses to simple biographical questions.

No, the technique those researchers use doesn’t work with every PVS patient. But they claim it did work with some. As the article also notes:

It will raise questions about when doctors should switch off life support machines. It is likely to add to the debate on assisted suicide as the patient could potentially decide and communicate if they wish to carry on living.

I’ll bet. And a good thing, too.

I find this surprising, to say the least:

The mortality rate of Californian women who die from causes directly related to pregnancy has nearly tripled in the past decade, reports California Watch. The investigative reporting website interviewed the authors of a not-yet-public Department of Public Health study identifying the most significant spike in pregnancy-related deaths since the 1930s. Although the total number of deaths remains relatively small, the report affirms that it’s now more dangerous to give birth in California than it is in Kuwait or Bosnia. Possible reasons behind the spike include an uptick in morbid obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes, along with hemorrhaging from the growing numbers of C-sections. And the trend could be nationwide. An alert issued last week to hospitals by the Joint Commission, the leading health care accreditation and standards group in the country, warned: “Unfortunately, current trends and evidence suggest that maternal mortality rates may be increasing in the U.S.”

Whatever you do, don’t ask Michael Ignatieff to comment.

Apparently, “baby brain” is a myth. Govern yourselves accordingly. (That means, fine, whatever, blame it on the hormones and the lack of sleep.)

When a politician has to engage in word distortions of Orwellian proportions, you know you have a real vote winner on your hands. Yup, he’s really laying down the gauntlet. I challenge you to a duel. Over what? Not telling! That’s the level of Michael Ignatieff’s avowed support for “woman’s rights.” It’s so strong that he can’t even say the word “abortion”.

“We don’t want to have women dying because of botched procedures. We don’t want to have women dying in misery,” Ignatieff told reporters Tuesday after Parliament Hill meetings on international development. “We’ve had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it.“

That leaves me feeling glad I get to talk about why abortion is not part of women’s rights, be it here or overseas, on Friday, at University of Ottawa. Lamoureux Hall, Room 122, 7 pm.

Come one, come all, yes Dr. Carolyn Bennett and Anita Neville, too. Looking forward to it.

____________________

Véronique adds: Aaaaargh! Again, this pro-choice consensus thing! The only place where there is a pro-choice consensus is in the head of pro-choice advocates and politicians.