A study on coercion in reproductive options doesn’t appear to mention how many women are coerced into having an abortion. Haven’t read the full thing, but if this study doesn’t mention that, then there’s a terribly large blind spot.
Am I to believe there’s coercion all around but the second a woman walks into an abortion clinic it’s her own, personal, private, freestanding choice? Really?
A short segment on maternal health, also featuring yours truly (by Skype, which is why I’m never looking at the camera.)
…and stays there because she won’t agree to the conditions of her release. Mary Wagner is being held in the same centre as Linda Gibbons.
Read about this, here.
I don’t know Mary. I don’t know Linda. But this sort of courage of conviction impresses me greatly.
And let the record stand: That’s 3 pro-lifers (I’m aware of) in jail across this great land. (Two for peaceful protest/prayer/counsel near or in clinics, one for refusing to pay taxes.)
In the abortion debate you have people like me, vociferously advocating for life, and you have people on the other side, who advocate so vociferously for a free choice on abortion that it amounts to advocating for abortion.
Otherwise you have a mushy middle.
That mushy middle should pay attention to where pro-choice advocates come out on sex selection abortion. Because generally this is where the soulless nature of abortion advocacy comes out: it’s in the “we couldn’t possible condemn any woman’s choice at any time” moments.
An article about this, here.
___________________________
Brigitte adds: Indeed. I’m against sex-selection abortion because I’m against abortion in general, and extremely against frivolous abortions (if your life is on the line, and you’re having to choose between your life and that of your unborn baby, then things are quite different – at least in my book). Aborting a baby because it’s not the right time right now to become a parent, to me, is at least as wrong as aborting a baby because it’s a girl and not a boy.
I, too, dislike the idea of making doctors withhold information to patients as a way of trying to limit the number of abortions based on gender alone.
One critic, however, questions the measure’s effectiveness, given that parents can mail order DNA tests that accurately predict fetal sex, and abortion clinics generally do not ask the reason for the procedure. The way to tackle sex selection is by combating the social mores that lead people to want sons and not daughters, rather than by limiting abortion, said Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.
“To restrict people’s freedoms, withholding information in that way, I think is unethical and unnecessary and is not going to prevent anything,” Ms. Arthur said. “It’s a little bit paternalistic and authoritarian.”
I agree that not telling patients won’t really help all that much (while annoying all the other parents out there who simply wish to know the gender of their baby as early as possible just because they’d rather know than not know). And yes, probably the best way to fight sex selection abortion is cultural, not legal. But hey, I wouldn’t mind if abortion clinics asked a few questions before going ahead with the procedure – why do you wish to abort; have you thought about other options; that sort of thing – at the very least make those parents who abort girls for no other reason than they prefer boys fess up semi-publicly. And really, it wouldn’t bother me if we could somehow have rules limiting access to abortion for entirely frivolous reasons – like because the baby is of the “wrong” gender. I am far from convinced this is possible and/or realistic, but if it were I wouldn’t be against it.
_____________________
Andrea adds: Well gosh, I didn’t know Joyce Arthur was all about freedom of information. I look forward to her advocacy in favour of doctors telling patients about the development of their children in detail then, at every stage. Information about what happens in an abortion (stirrups, suction, piece body parts back together after the fact to ensure that all have been removed)… You know, freedom of information.
When Joyce Arthur advocates for freedom of information for women it will be a sunny day in Canada indeed. It’s just that she really doesn’t want that, so it’s a bit rich to claim it here.
A blanket law restricting what doctors tell is unnecessary, as doctors are very aware when someone is wondering about the gender because they want to kill off their baby girl. It would require not a law, but a doctor telling parents I won’t support your nefarious intentions here, and here’s why. That would require doctors who don’t enforce an abortion culture in other areas. (They shouldn’t be the arbiters of what constitutes “a good abortion.” Here we have an attempt for the pot to call the kettle black. “We don’t like your cultural reasons for killing. We do, however, like our cultural reasons for killing.”)
All abortions are bad news.
No, I’m not going to get in the middle of the discussion between Andrea and Véronique about job prospects (or lack thereof) for moms. I will simply say, since you can’t resist asking me for my opinion anyway, that I believe we each make our own opportunities based on our own unique set of experiences and challenges. Also, I never expect anything from anyone, so it’s easier for me not to be disappointed when some things are harder than I thought.
But.
That’s now why I’m writing now. I just noticed this news story about the prevalence of women in the public sector and I’m just delighted that some people are starting to question affirmative action. I have always been against the idea of giving any group of people preferential treatment based on their gender or race or anything not directly related to the job they’re applying for. I believe we each make our own opportunities based on our own unique set of experiences and challenges, and that’s that.
________________________
Véronique adds: Ah, yes, affirmative action. When I saw the front page I thought about the discussion on career prospects. I’m not too hot on affirmative action as a principle although my earlier comments may lead you to believe otherwise. I’m not saying that systemic injustices don’t exist or that wrongs shouldn’t be “righted”. On the other hand, I look at any state interference with suspicion, especially when it comes to picking winners. It’s not only that picking winners creates a whole new class of injustices in response to injustice but it also erodes our collective work ethic. Some people will never get ahead no matter how hard they work; other people will get ahead regardless of how little they work.
Wow, what a perfectly horrible story:
It sounds like a script for a B-grade horror movie: a childless 30-something American woman decides to adopt a seven-year-old orphan boy from halfway around the world. Overnight, the boy’s world changes completely: from the gloom of a Russian orphanage, he is transported to the bucolic “horse country” of Tennessee. At first all seems well, but as time goes on the boy begins to display disturbing behaviour, spitting, hissing and kicking his new mother, threatening to kill family members, reacting violently when denied a new toy, attempting to beat a relative with a statue when asked to correct his math homework.
Finally, when the child not only threatens to burn down his house but draws pictures of the conflagration, the adoptive mother hatches a desperate plan. She puts the boy on a plane back to Russia with a note saying that he has severe psychological problems, she was lied to by the orphanage, and that she had
“…given my best to this child [but was] sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends and myself, I no longer wish to parent this child. As he is a Russian national, I am returning him to your guardianship and would like the adoption disannulled.”
Were this a movie, that would be the final frame; the haunted face of a purported psychopathic child staring out the face of the airplane, while his adoptive mother and her family sob with both guilt and relief. But this isn’t a fantasy – it’s the real story of Russian orphan Artyom Savelyev and his American adoptive mother, Torry Hansen. And this drama didn’t end at the airport: it has spawned an international diplomatic incident, a freeze on American adoption of Russian children, and an investigation into the adoptive mother and her family.
Words fail me. I gather adoption is not always easy, and I’m sure international adoptions are several orders of magnitude harder. Especially when the child has been mistreated – or “mistreated” according to posh North American standards. But good grief – “I no longer wish to parent this child”? That’s enough to kick an orphan, a 7-year-old orphan, back to Russia?
Great article about the situation in China:
By the year 2020, there will be 30 million more men than women of marriageable age in this giant empire, so large and so different (its current population is 1,336,410,000) that it often feels more like a separate planet than just another country. Nothing like this has ever happened to any civilisation before. …
…And in every cheerful classroom there was a slightly sinister shortage of girls, as if we had wandered into some sort of science fiction fantasy.
The whole article is filled with interesting quotes, eye witness accounts of the problem. Warning: It’s very disturbing. But all the more reason to know and learn. I do wonder why we don’t talk about this more.
Rex Murphy on Sarah Palin. I like the column but disagree with his last line:
No wonder Obama claims he won’t respond when she tweets. The Hope and Change President still owns Hope, but real Change in current American politics is on Palin’s side of the ledger.
I’m not sure that Obama owns hope anymore, anymore, either. This is not to say that Sarah Palin owns Hope and Change (what are we talking about here, anyway, who “owns” those things?) But rather that Obama decidedly does not. They are “for sale” I suppose.
Back to maternal health: Dr. Leiva in today’s Ottawa Citizen:
Proper choice should include options for those methods that respect the social, cultural and religious values of the people in the developing world. Abortion is certainly not one of them.
The only other G8 story I’ve seen is about nuclear partnerships. If I were Prime Minister, I’d be tired of the whole maternal health saga by now too. That said, people on our side should tire him out more by sending friendly letters in support of his position not to include abortion in a maternal health mandate.
If we profess certain principles, now is the time to voice them privately to the Prime Minister’s office, and publicly, too.