This cute little video is making the rounds. Enjoy.
A good reminder that if we are tempted to condemn eugenic thinking of past eras, we should probably condemn the eugenic thinking of the current one. (Most Down Syndrome babies are aborted.)
A woman for president
Sure, I’d take a woman for president, provided it’s the right woman. However, I agree with Barbara Kay here. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. Plus, it’s really counter-productive to think in terms of voting for a politician because they are fill-in-the-blank minority.
Either you think Hillary’s ascension would represent a momentous shattering of a glass ceiling it is high time was shattered, or you think what would have been a big deal in 1990 is a big yawn today. I’m in the latter camp. It would be a first in the U.S., to be sure, but so what? Never mind Thatcher and Golda Meir; there have been women prime ministers in India and Pakistan. And what good did that do the women of India and Pakistan? None, as far as I can tell, any more than Obama being the first black president did anything to heal the racial divide (and arguably contributed to its worsening).
(I disagree with Barbara that only a woman would think about stealing furniture or cutlery after serving in public office. I know of men who have stolen office furniture, and that’s the same idea.)
My big problem with Hillary is not her penchant for theft or lying but rather her extreme pro-abortion stance. Gone are the conciliatory, “conservative” days of safe, legal and rare.
In other news, I’m pleased to report that I am the first Canadian female of Czech-Polish heritage to have a women-only pro-life blog! Bring out the champagne. (There’s always champagne to be had if you narrow the parameters for winning.)
“It takes someone strong…
…to make someone strong.”
This is fair to cite when lauding Olympic moms. Can we also say this is true of any mother who keeps her baby through an unplanned pregnancy? I think so. Except we don’t applaud those moms quite so much, because if we did, we would necessarily be condemning the choice of other moms to abort. Which somehow, oddly, some folks would like to likewise portray as courageous and strong. Since doing both is impossible, we simply don’t recognize mothers as much as we ought to today. If it takes the Olympics and a corporation to make this point about moms being strong, I’ll still take it. What this highlights also is the fact that we all need encouragement to be strong, and so encouraging or allowing abortion isn’t a step in that direction. Friends don’t drive friends to the clinic.
[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ3k6BFX2uw]
Strong mom doing push ups with her daughter. Cool, except they should get out of the middle of the road.
And then there was one
I can’t begin to describe the level of pain I feel when women go for IVF to create human lives and then, when they are successful, they abort.
I cannot and never will begin to understand how it is that a woman who wanted children badly enough to subject her body to IVF treatments, gets pregnant, and then goes for abortion.
This cri-de-couer is the result of this article in the Post:
A Toronto hospital’s refusal to reduce a woman’s twin pregnancy to one fetus — at least partly because of a doctor’s moral objections — has triggered a human-rights fight over the little-known but contentious procedure.The Ottawa-area patient had been warned that carrying twins at her age could increase the risk of losing the whole pregnancy, and was referred to Mount Sinai Hospital for a “selective reduction.” That means terminating at least one among multiple fetuses, akin to a partial abortion. But the institution declined to provide the service, saying its practice was to only reduce triplets or more, unless one of the twins has some kind of anomaly.
Doesn’t aborting a twin and leaving one just cause you to feel a punch in the gut? We are mostly pro-life readers at this blog, so of course we mourn every abortion. But honestly, as when babies are killed for the possibility of Down Syndrome, I just feel this all the more acutely.
Not so for the bioethicists on call here.
A woman should have the right to choose, just as she can opt for other procedures with debatable medical justification, like elective caesarian sections, said Francoise Baylis, Canada research chair in bioethics at Dalhousie University.
Doctors also have a right to conscientiously object to providing a service, but are obliged to refer patients to someone who will do it, she added.
There seems no justification for refusing twin reduction other than “disapproving of the (woman’s) decision,” said Udo Shuklenk, who holds the Ontario research chair in bioethics at Queen’s University.
I suppose there is hope in that Mt. Sinai didn’t want to do it.
Sunnybrook got ‘er done expediently though.
If this other twin survives, I hope he or she never finds out what happened.
Summer blogging
Some of you have asked if everything is OK since blogging is light. Thank you for the concern! Indeed, all is well. It’s summer and I’m trying at every possible opportunity to be outside, aka away from the computer. For example, I swam across Lake Okanagan on July 16. And I have the new bathing cap to prove it!
My ardour for the cause has not waned, as we (pretty much constantly) discuss how to move the ball forward on this file with like-minded friends. Culture change is not achieved overnight. It’s long term. If you have ideas you want to toss around for making abortion unthinkable, and, specifically, to ensure that all of North America knows abortion does not enhance women’s rights (and never has)–then please drop me a line! And I will respond–after I towel off.
It’s only confident types who post photos of themselves in bathing caps.
If only humans were marsupials…
…perhaps this wouldn’t be quite so confusing. Kangaroos have a 28 day pregnancy but then the baby kangaroo travels into the pouch and continues growing there. Sometimes, as with the second picture, they stick there heads out to take a look around while their moms are taking a snooze. Pretty crazy!
The Innocents
If I get a chance, I’ll go see this movie, The Innocents. A positive review here.
The Innocents, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January, is a French-Polish-Belgian co-production based on the real accounts of a young French doctor working for the Red Cross in post-World War II Poland. The year is 1945. Dr. Mathilde Beaulieu, who has been sent there to treat French survivors of the German camps, discovers a convent of Polish Benedictine nuns who are hiding what they believe is a terrible secret: Several of them are pregnant, the result of brutal rapes by Russian soldiers. In the able hands of the noted French director Anne Fontaine, the film portrays with subdued power these profoundly “hard cases”: women who have taken vows of chastity, horribly violated and feeling ashamed, though they are innocent of any crime.
Gender quotas don’t help business or women
Me in the Financial Post today about gender quotas. Kathleen Wynne is introducing them for Ontario but in other parts of the world quotas have not achieved what they were supposed to:
A book about the Nordic experience released in May 2016 punctures those hopes and should be cause for reconsidering Ontario’s path. The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox by Nima Sanandaji assesses gender-equality programs and plans in Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Specifically in Norway, the evidence from studying quotas show neutral or negative results, both for women’s advancement and company performance — the two areas we are told will most obviously benefit.
What we learn from Sanandaji’s research is that the effects of quotas in Norway were far from positive. Norway introduced quotas requiring 40 per cent of board members of public companies to be women in 2003. This became mandatory for all companies in 2006. Of 500 companies affected, about 100 made “difficult but legal” changes in corporate structure to circumvent the new legislation. Share prices, he writes, dropped 3.5 per cent after the quota legislation was announced. More to the point, quotas had little to no effect on women’s pay, or women choosing to enter the business world.
Supreme Court rules in abortion case (USA)
The Supreme Court of the United States struck down a set of Texas restrictions aimed at improving standards in abortion clinics, so that they would be safer for patients.
I have a couple of off-the-cuff comments on this. One is that if Texas wants tight restrictions on abortion they should be allowed to have them. Where states are told by a far-away federal court what they can and can’t do, it means the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people. This is a problem.
Second, abortion providers in the USA make a lot of money. So the picture from the National Post is worth a thousand words–these women own abortion clinics and their jobs would have gotten a lot more expensive if they needed to comply with the regulations. They are, as they walk down the steps of the Supreme Court, cheering for the money they will make.
Thirdly, whether abortion is “safer” than childbirth is a moot point. Since there is little to no justification for killing innocents, but there is always justification for saving life, then more properly, one should consider that in abortions a woman is going into surgery for reasons that could have been dealt with in a less invasive manner.
I sure do hope these folks are pro-life
RibFest, Ottawa. An annual tradition for many of us. And this year? A woman on a BBQ. Because pork and chicken are no different from human flesh. Thanks, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.)
My only comment: I sure do hope PETA is pro-life. Because certainly, if we care about chickens and pork, we should care about people? People for the Ethical Treatment of People, as I always say.
(Please be advised that the charred woman on the BBQ is wearing almost nothing in the Brian Lilley link above.)
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- …
- 279
- Next Page »