Someone sent me this article and I thought it was refreshing. I think many young mothers might be relieved to know that small children under the age of five constitute “the darkest part of motherhood:”

She turned to me and cheerfully asked, “So, what are the ages of your children?” I answered a bit sheepishly, “4 ½, 2 ½, and 1 ½,” unsure of where the conversation was heading. “Oh,” she exclaimed, “you’re in the darkest part of motherhood! It’s going to get better!” Say what? I was totally surprised, and frankly, relieved.

The article goes on to highlight how decisions to sterilize are often made on emotional grounds, without enough information. I’m quite sure decisions to abort are made on emotional grounds, without enough information. So I certainly saw a parallel there. The moment of finding out that you are pregnant if you didn’t want to be is a very dark day indeed. Too bad there aren’t more older, experienced women to step out alongside and say something simple like “this too shall pass,” or “this is as bad as it’s going to get” before we go on and take drastic measures to “alleviate” the pain.

You learn something new every day, don’t you.

Steve Jobs, the man behind your iPad, iPhone, iEverything–was put up for adoption as a baby.  

I find this interesting. Unwanted babies can become criminals, but they can also become geniuses. As pro-lifers we understand we can’t sanitize the world. We also understand that every life (criminal or genius) has a purpose and a plan.

It is never fair or compassionate to imply or outright state, as pro-choicers so often do, that it would be better if someone were never born. Everyone is wanted by someone.

I think Jennifer linked to this story/study in one of her posts, but I do believe it deserves a post all of its own.

“Abortion is tied to a sharp decline in mental health,” reads the headline. This has been covered up and made into a political issue in the United States, but as time goes on, and particularly outside North America, more studies make it plainly evident that this is true.

After my longest ever hiatus in three years of blogging, I am back. I was on holiday. In the past, I was really quite uptight about not breaking the commandment that one day shalt not pass without a post going up. However, this vacation, once I started avoiding the blog I found I…couldn’t stop. People have emailed me items and asked “Have you seen this??” (for which I am always grateful). No, is the short answer because I successfully disengaged from just about all media/news. I really have no sweet clue what is going on in the world just now, which is really not something someone in my position should admit. Don’t tell.

Anyhoo, I return with this short item revealing (again) how the federal government pays maternity benefits to women after their abortion. Just one of those items that reminds us all why holidays on regular intervals are important. (Otherwise, you’d go totally crazy.)

ProWomanProLife is taking a bit of a summer break. Your regularly scheduled blogging will return in September.

I have it on good authority (ok, so she told me herself) that our very own Véronique will be on Brian Lilley’s show tonight (starts at 9 pm). She is herself pregnant with twins, as readers of this blog will know, and will be discussing “selective reduction.”

Tune in!

Ain’t never been any logic I could see in the pro-choice world. And debates on the topic can get pretty annoying, pretty fast, for everyone. Pro-lifers expose the inconsistencies and pro-choicers  splutter some variation of “I’m entitled to my entitlements!” 

Anyhoo, great article here highlighting how people who are pro-choice should not be uncomfortable with “selective reduction.” It’s abortion, plain and simple, and if we’re AOK with that (and remember, we’re all supposed to be) then choosing which fetus of twins or triplets should live is really all the same.

This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are “activated eggs.” A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don’t want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a “child in utero” during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed “the unborn child’s mother,” but no such penalty applies to “an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman . has been obtained.”

Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can’t pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You’re killing the same creature to which you’re dedicating your life.

I can’t be the only one who thinks of the song when you hear about Gloria Steinem’s new documentary.

I have not watched the documentary. I have, however, watched the 80s era music video. Well worth it. (I will watch the Gloria Steinem documentary at some point, so commentary will be forthcoming.)

An abortion doctor sets a woman’s labour in motion and then sends her packing so that she delivers a viable baby girl, who now has disabilities.

I’m not one who believes that dismembering that baby in the womb would have been a grand success. These cases do, however, act as reminders that abortion kills a person, women are complicit in their children’s death, and abortion clinics in the new millenium are a far cry from safe, even though they are legal.

But when what is legal is also disgusting and wrong, the proper response is criticism and stigma, especially effective when the prominent—like Boston’s mayor—publicly express it.

We need more people prepared to speak up.