Archives for May 2010

Don’t get me wrong. I love all animals, particularly dogs. In fact, the main reason why I don’t have a pooch right now is because I would not be able to do right by the dog in my small apartment.

Still, I can’t help but agree, here. 

Such public anguish and mass mobilization over animals has social advocates wondering why the streets often fall silent when such unfortunate fates befall fellow humans. One academic plans to launch a study of the phenomenon. “I look forward to the day when 200 people are speaking out about sexual abuse of children,” said sex abuse survivor John Swales, a Windsor-based victim’s advocate and support services advisor. “There’s no public display; it’s just business as usual…. It is a dismal reflection of society when an animal receives more concern than a child.”

We apparently don’t feel compelled to protest when it’s human beings who are abused. (Buy a t-shirt.)

Harper Conservatives told to vote against bill that would add penalties for those found coercing a woman into getting an abortion.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will vote against a private member’s bill promoted by one of his own MPs that would add new Criminal Code penalties for those who coerce women to have an abortion. A senior government official also says that while the prime minister will not “whip” or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes, it will be “very strongly recommended” that Conservatives vote to defeat the bill.

I’m not convinced myself that this bill is, legally speaking, all that necessary. But it’s not like it would do much harm even to those who are staunchly pro-choice. After all, it’s not because you’re in favour of abortion on demand that you sympathize with boyfriends or family members who pressure a woman into having an abortion she doesn’t want. Right? No reasonable person is in favour of coercing women into abortion. So why not let MPs vote as they wish?

This thoughtful assessment of the maternal health policy through the lens of what constitutes charity in Judaism is a fascinating read.

Please leave your comments at the National Post site, where there’s already a good discussion going. Unless you just want to say, Rock on, Rebecca! which is pretty much my comment. She’s the smart one. I am merely enthusiastic.

Looks like some doctors have been caught avoiding scientific research to maintain abortion status quo.

Well, actually, I’m not sure there is just one (libertarians come in many varieties). But this oped by my old friend Martin Masse explains it about as well as can be.

Libertarianism is not, as many conservatives tend to believe, a relativistic philosophy of “anything goes.” It is, on the contrary, a moral philosophy, based on the principle of non-aggression.

Although a person should be free to do what he or she wants with his own body and property, that has to take place in a social setting where everyone else’s individual rights are being protected, which implies a lot of restrictions on what can be done.

When it comes to abortion, first, there is the basic libertarian question of individual rights, including the right not to be “terminated.” When is the fetus an individual and when does he have these rights? The answer to this question is fundamental.

[…]

So where would a libertarian set the threshold? One definition of an individual that can potentially garner the support not only of most libertarians, but of most Canadians, is when the fetus has brain activity and can feel. That’s the same type of debates we are having at the end of life: someone who is brain dead is not considered a living individual anymore and most of us consider it morally acceptable then to end life support.

[…]

Second, there is the question of personal responsibility and the government paying for this.

Feminist propaganda tells us that it’s a hard choice for all women going through this experience, and that we should make it as easy as possible for them. But I find it hard to believe that in Quebec for example, 30% of pregnancies (down from 40% in 2002, but up from 5% in 1975) have to end up in abortions.

Why do so many women resort to this procedure, and even use it repeatedly, as if it were a benign form of birth control?  Like all other activities that are being subsidized, people tend to find that it’s acceptable to overuse it, no matter the moral aspects involved.

[…]

As a libertarian, I would certainly want to put a lot more emphasis on personal responsibility (a basic libertarian principle) in the way we deal with this issue. The end result is that we would likely have a lot fewer abortions, and a much better balance between the competing rights of the unwilling mother and those of the unborn individual who depends on her to survive.

Father De Souza hits one nicely on the head:

What drives the hostility to the government’s motherhood issue? Motherhood. The heart of the opposition to the initiative is its starting point – expectant mothers. To a certain cast of mind, considering women as mothers constitutes something of a retrograde step. Hence the objection that helping mothers to have safe deliveries is somehow illegitimate unless similar help is offered to women to avoid becoming mothers at all.

In most elite circles, the great social liberation of the past generations has been the liberation of women from the expectation, to say nothing of the reality, of motherhood. Indeed, liberation from the fear of motherhood due to easy contraception and unlimited abortion is considered perhaps the greatest item of social progress in the last half-century. Consequently, for a program to explicitly favour motherhood, even at the minimal level of ensuring safe deliveries, causes howls of outrage from those who think that African villagers should behave more like liberal society matrons – if one might use that pregnant word, figuratively speaking of course.

In many African countries, for example, for Canada to fund abortions would be breaking the local laws. To flout local laws and undermine local customs was once called paternalism. It’s an odd turn for Canada’s abortion extremists to be paternalistic, but such is the strangeness of this controversy.

How exactly is this not promoting abortion?

The advert from Marie Stopes will be screened on Monday, offering what the organisation says will be “clear, non-judgmental information” on unplanned pregnancies and abortion services.

Marie Stopes said it took the decision to screen the commercial after a study found fewer than half of UK adults knew where to go for specialist advice about an unplanned pregnancy other than their GP.

Asking your family doctor seems like a good place to turn when you want personalized health advice. At least your GP will understand your medical history and family background. Something tells me a ‘specialist clinic’ will want less information.

I saw the headline to this story and started worrying, but it turns out they meant “right to die” in the good old-fashioned sense of being allowed to refuse treatment even when doctors think there’s still hope.

Doctors could be struck off if they fail to respect the wishes of terminally ill patients who want to die by refusing treatment, the General Medical Council is to announce.

They must allow the terminally ill to refuse food and water if the patient does not want treatment that prolongs their life and must abide by “living wills” in which patients specify in advance that they do not want to be resuscitated.

I’m sure there are still plenty of problems with patients whose will cannot be clearly expressed (for whatever reason) or with patients who seem to be pressured into death by relatives, and who knows what all. But in principle, if you’re determined not to continue treatment come what may, then your wishes ought to be respected.

Spector on Charest, and Margaret Wente who says relax, abortion rights aren’t threatened, and write a cheque to Planned Parenthood.

Ha!

A loving mother who kisses her child’s boo-boos may be providing more health benefits than she knows.

New research indicates that early childhood experiences can have a lasting effect on health by influencing a person’s risk for chronic inflammation, the immune reaction that is the body’s first line of defense against disease. Moms who soothe a child can help reduce stress, calming the hormones that can contribute to inflammation, the study suggests.

I wonder if it works with daycare workers?