I cannot tell you how many articles I’ve received about this MTV 16 and Pregnant special that covers “the abortion option.” Pro-choice fanatics heralded it as the greatest thing ever, which meant my guard was up. But pro-lifers jumped in and asked how the special could be seen as cheerleading for the pro-choice cause given how torn up the mother was.

I don’t love “reality TV” and was resisting even taking the topic on as a result.

But I’m breaking down. The special can be viewed online here. I’ve seen only the first little bit at time of posting but I’ll probably watch the whole thing and update with my personal views later.

They are out there, oh yes! Oftentimes, especially in the United States, less so in Canada, we are led to believe that being pro-life comes with a certain package of other political beliefs. That was never the intent of this web site, quite the contrary. The problem is that I am right of centre, and I started this web site, so there’s a “right of centre” bias that comes naturally. In case readers thought I wasn’t aware of that, I am.

Anyways, here’s a news article about a prominent Democrat pro-lifer:

What makes Cassidy different from many pro-life crusaders is his card-carrying liberal credentials with a long history of involvement in Democratic Party campaigns and legal fights to represent the poor and the marginalized. He admits that “there was a point in time when I didn’t think at all about what abortion did to women. And so I was all for it.”

That changed in 1990 when a couple came to him after their child was born with Down syndrome. The doctor had not performed tests which might have tipped the couple off to the baby’s debilitating condition. The couple wanted to sue for “wrongful birth;” meaning, they would have aborted the fetus had they known her condition.

As Blustain tells it: “Cassidy declined the case (asking himself): ‘What would it be like for me and for this little girl if I stood in the well of a courtroom and argued to a jury that they had to give lots of money to her mom and dad because they didn’t get a chance to kill her?'”

And so you see, even left-wingers can tell right from wrong. (That was a joke. I refer you to point A about my right-of-centre bias.)

There are awards given in Margaret Sanger’s name, for all her very fine work to exterminate undesirables encourage “reproductive freedom.” A quote I stumbled upon from the lady herself:

The American socialist Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and is still a feminist and liberal icon. On black people and immigrants in general, these were “human weeds” and “reckless breeders,” “spawning human beings who never should have been born.” She believed in the sterilization of the mentally ill, in “racial purification” and the elimination of those she labelled the “feeble-minded.” She was aware, however, that her racism might cause a few problems and warned that, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” because it might provoke “their more rebellious members.”

Now tell me–if her life’s work had been in chemistry or engineering or math, there’s a snowball’s chance in hell she’d be held up as an icon today. But no, her life’s work was birth control and abortion, and so, the abortion distortion means we are meant to put aside her racism and generally abhorrent views, or contextualize them–she was living in a eugenic age, so we should tolerate her views–etc., etc., etc. Enough of the excuses–hers is not a byline you’d want in your paper today, and we shouldn’t give or accept awards in her name. More to the point, her racism was not a side view, it was intimately connected to her life’s work. Despicable.

A friend in Australia recently sent me Giving Sorrow Words, by Melinda Tankard Reist. It’s a book for women who don’t exist, the author writes, because women who grieve the abortions they had are told it was just another choice and that if they suffer, it’s their fault:

Attitudes towards women overwhelmed by grief following abortion demonstrate a cruel indifference to women’s pain. Their suffering is considered a figment of their imagination; their guilt and remorse a byproduct of social/religious conditioning. In short, they are an embarrassment.

The book allows women to tell their personal stories. I read one last night and cried–a woman followed by the ghost of her child everywhere she went, for whom suicide felt like it might provide welcome relief.

I think I’ll likely quote from this book as a I read it, from time to time, but I wanted people to be aware of the book in the first place. It’s the first time I’m seeing all in one place, detailed stories of how and why these women went for an abortion and what that did to them. And I think it’s important both for women who have had abortions and are suffering right now, but also for the rest of everybody to remember that abortion causes tremendous pain for so many.

I linked to Dennis Prager on this question earlier, here.

Now with a different view on a similar theme from the UK, a study suggests women aren’t as interested in financial independence as we may think:  

The report concluded that equal roles in the family, where husband and wife shared employment, childcare and housework, was ‘not the ideal sought by most couples’.

Dr Hakim added: ‘It is thus not surprising that wives generally earn less than their husbands, and that most couples rationally decide that it makes sense for her to take on the larger share of child care, and to use most or all the parental leave allowance.’

…The study comes after a series of measures announced by the Coalition intended to decrease the pay difference between women and men.

Since we hear about the “gender wage gap” here in Canada often enough, it’s wise to be savvy to why such a gap exists and the extent to which it simply reflects women’s desires.

Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times about the paradox of North America’s unborn:

No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.

Sad but true.

This quick article identifies four of them. And these, incidentally, are the main arguments you hear in support of abortion.

Which raises a point: is the pro-choice status quo based on any arguments at all? Arguably not. It’s based on emotion and feelings. Which is why an article like this won’t make a dent on how people think. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have good arguments. I’m not saying we shouldn’t shoot down bad arguments. But there’s something more than a good, well-argued debate to changing hearts and minds about abortion. Otherwise, pro-lifers would have won the day long ago.

Friends, Readers, lend me your ear:

It is the First Day of the New Year, and I, having largely overcome the dreaded common cold (three cheers), have decided I will write down some ProWomanProLife First Principles. Brass tacks. The neeeety greeeeety. (That’s “nitty gritty,” said with a Nacho Libre accent. If you haven’t seen the movie, go rent it. It can do you nothing but a world of good. Hmmm. Perhaps “good” is stretching it. But it can do no harm, and in our impoverished culture, you may at least get a few laughs, which can never be underestimated. Nachoooooooo!)

Where was I? Right. In January 2008, with the 20^th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision looming large, I started ProWomanProLife because I knew other women would celebrate Morgentaler as a hero and a protector of women’s rights.

This I could not stomach, and so, ProWomanProLife came into being, with five other ladies: Brigitte Pellerin, Teresa Fraser, Sheryl Alger (MD, an obstetrician-gynaecologist, no less), Raji Shankar and Rebecca Walberg. Later we were joined by Patricia Egan, Tanya Zaleski, Veronique Bergeron, Jennifer Derwey and Deborah Mullan. Today PWPL has a presence A Mare usque ad Mare—from sea to sea. From sea to shining sea, oh yes.

Unlike so many pro-abortion feminists who stand up and make claims to represent all of womankind, everywhere, ProWomanProLife makes no pretences to know what every woman across this great land is thinking. We only represent those we represent, with the hope of changing some hearts and minds along the way.

We are women who do not see Morgentaler as a hero, who know abortion is not a right. (And that the Supreme Court of Canada never said it was!) We abhor abortion as being contrary to anything approximating compassion.  We further know that many educated women feel this way, that oftentimes pro-choice folks obscure the debate by using euphemisms that make it easy for women to make a mistake and finally, that being pro-life is a rational and compassionate position to take.

ProWomanProLife is a forum for pro-life women to exchange ideas and to feel supported and to know they are not alone in an isolating culture, one that is, to a greater or lesser extent, pro-choice or apathetic to pro-life views. I need not tell you that there are many virulently pro-abortion online forums, and some of those (I count Planned Parenthood among them) are government funded. It is important to raise up reasonable pro-life voices in this atmosphere, and to be there for the stranger’s google search.

Being pro-life, one often faces the mainstream media’s misconception that pro-lifers couldn’t care less about women themselves. So this is also a forum that never overlooks the woman who walked herself into the abortion clinic. We believe that the fetus is a new and unique human being from conception, separate from, though dependent on, the woman and that the two can thrive together. We will continue to repeat this message, attempting to punch through the false idea that “choice” means freedom and a better life.

There are moments, when this blog wanders off the abortion track into other realms. This has been the point all along. For one, no one person can focus on abortion all the time. Secondly, there has always been a no-censorship rule for every blogger at PWPL; so if someone feels the need to blog about what man plays the best James Bond, or why Nacho Libre is a fine, comedic masterpiece, well then, so be it.

I cannot say what the future holds, this in spite of asking my Magic Eight Ball so many, many times. (And look, now a web site to mimick the Magic Eight Ball: “Will PWPL thrive?” “Ask again later.” Ah, such wisdom.)

So long as I (and the eight other bloggers) remain on the opinionated side of life, the blog too, shall continue and with it, the odd opinion piece and study. (Watch for the first ever PWPL study in 2011.) If need be, we’ll send out more press releases, as we did when Morgentaler became a member of the Order of Canada, so that women who are against abortion will continue to have a voice when others pretend to speak for them.  (And should the need arise, we can also convey information through Facebook, so feel free to join our group. And please continue to send in items of interest, as this is always welcome for the daily blogging routine.)

To every reader I say thank you, and wish you the very best in 2011.

Happy New Year!

Just had a listen to Joseph Ben-Ami on CFRA, here. If you have time, it’s worth listening to because Joseph correctly identifies that in the Morgentaler decision, the Supreme Court of Canada never said there is a right to abortion. They said it is up to Parliament to decide. (This came up again over the ruling on assisted human reproduction.)

One of the oft-repeated myths of the pro-choice camp is that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled there is a right to abortion. Since this is not true, I will take every opportunity to remind my fellow Canadians that they said no such thing!

Since abortion is currently socially acceptable, a “woman’s right,” an “easy, safe procedure,” bla bla bla, graphic photos are offensive, possibly doctored and must not be shown. But once there is a consensus that something is bad? Well then, bring on the graphics!

The federal government is announcing new, larger explicit warning photos on cigarette packages.

(This article wonders whether graphic photos might not decrease the number of abortions, something many who are pro-choice claim to want to do.)