When I wrote my piece for the Calgary Herald, I deliberately put the name of the blog Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome in. It’s the best way to ensure the blog author takes note and responds.

And respond she did.

A couple of small things. She seems to be annoyed I didn’t link to her in the piece. That’s just silly–of course I couldn’t, because the piece was published in print. Interested parties are supposed to go and do what everyone does: Use Google.

She also seems to think I’ve misquoted her. I have not. Someone landed in her clinic who did not want an abortion and made a big fuss about it. That was the sole point. That the blog author made fun of her, that the girl left without having an abortion is entirely irrelevant. She got that far in a process she didn’t want to participate in.

That Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome disagrees with me is no great surprise. She works in an abortion clinic. Most women do feel some relief around the day of the abortion. That’s the short term effect; it took care of the pregnancy. It made it go away. I bet Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome gets thank you cards for her work. In the short-term.

That’s the thing about abortion. You feel relief that you didn’t have to have a child with the wrong person, in a wrong relationship, at the wrong time…But in the long term you look back and ask yourself: Was it really so dire? Did I have to kill? My kid would have been X years old today. And that’s where I get the feedback. The questions. The friends lying curled up in the fetal position on the bathroom floor, sobbing for a mistake that can never be undone. And it’s a mistake to have an abortion. It’s a mistake to think that life problems are solved through abortion.

Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome is 26 years old. She sounds like the type of person I’d like. After all, she’s someone who started up a blog about a topic she believes in. But she could afford to open up the dialogue and listen to the heart of what I wrote. It was something I was hoping people working in clinics would hear, and be aware of, since I fully understand that they are not wanting to do abortions on women who are unsure, or don’t want them. They should be the front lines in diverting women out the door. They should be the front lines of asking the tough questions on whether or not a woman wants to be there. They should be at the front lines of diminishing abortion numbers. I know some who actually want to do this.

No reason, then, to laugh at my article. I wrote it with a good heart, and representing the many women out there who regret their abortions, but only do so in the long term.

I would very much love it if a man brought forward a human rights complaint that he is being denied an abortion. I’m pretty sure they’d hear it:

I know it will be controversial, but it shouldn’t be. Here’s a piece I wrote for the Calgary Herald explaining why.

Quite a touching clip on why opposition to legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia is important. I don’t actually think you have to have any faith at all to relate. In matters of life and death, on the precautionary principle alone, we should stand on the side of life because our own understanding is always limited.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0LXYsvdpUI”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0LXYsvdpUI]

…London, UK! As the abortion capital of Europe! Come on down and accept your prize!

Read about abortion in England, here.

Couple of small problems with the article. For one, the murder of George Tiller seems to be stacked up with 40 Days for Life (students: Please compare and contrast the murder of a man in church with a silent sidewalk prayer vigil). Second, the author astutely notes that in the UK, no one bothers to protest abortion anymore (it’s just so commonplace) but that it is also more likely to be used as birth control. Go figure.

Watch here. Interesting concept, having live women sit in windows for sale to prove a point. Almost graphic, isn’t it. Shocking. Unless and until it’s made legal, in which case, it’s all apparently dandy and fine. Nothing to see here, move along, folks!

Anyhoo. I like the quote from the former prostitute. If you don’t get a chance to watch, the news story basically says she got into the business at 12 and she is emphatic that no one ever chooses to have whatever someone else wants done to her body. (And yes, the link between prostitution and human trafficking is very real.)

As you may be aware, Tuesday is election day in the United States of America. I don’t claim to be an expert on US politics but I’ll be watching the California race keenly. Carly Fiorina, accomplished HP executive (Republican and pro-life) is challenging Barbara Boxer, the Democrat incumbent, who is pro-abortion. I’ll let you guess who I hope wins.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watchv=VlSR3v42HFI&feature=player_embedded”>http://www.youtube.com/watchv=VlSR3v42HFI&feature=player_embedded]

Those are the words of an abortionist, Dr. Elizabeth Newhall. She has a vision for a day when the fact that women have abortions becomes totally invisible. Right now we are aware of the injustice, because we have private clinics. If only all doctors would just provide abortions as part of the regular checkup… Listen for yourself.

Talk about strong women: Last night I saw this documentary about Irena Sendler and her friends who saved Polish Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvycQNINaKg”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvycQNINaKg]

To say it left a strong impact on me would be an understatement. If you watch the trailer, one of the women describes how Polish Christians caught with a Polish Jew would be killed on the spot. This is the same woman who describes in the film how, as part of the Polish resistance, she would kill traiterous Poles, those who were collaborating with the Nazis. These traiterous Poles would keep lists of hidden Polish Jews and when she killed them, she had to find that list–it was the key to safety for those families who were hiding children.

Irena Sendler, all of these women, seemed to have little idea that they were  heroes. Irena referred only to the fact that she couldn’t do it without the help of her friends (one of whom was tortured and executed). She said she remembered only what her father taught her: When you see a drowing man, reach out your hand.

Irena Sendler was up for the Nobel Peace Prize but Al Gore won instead.

I highly recommend this film.

Why oh why oh why OH WHY does anyone ever go with the “it’s always existed” or “it’s entirely natural” argument in defending his or her cause?

Goodness me. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times. Abortion has always existed, and therefore, it’s necessary and right, say abortion supporters. Prostitution, ditto.

This letter defending how natural prostitution is, is the impetus for today’s rant:

Prostitution is a natural phenomenon. Slamming and condemning governments and politicians for not doing anything about it is no solution, and shows a misunderstanding of the attitudes of many Canadians.

I find these arguments embarrassing because they are so easily refuted. Just because something is longstanding does not make it right. I read in today’s Post that in Albania, the family members of murderers have to go into permanent hiding because of a cultural tradition whereby the wounded family is allowed to knock off one of the murderer’s family. Ah, blood feud, vigilante justice. Been around for centuries–and therefore it must be good! On what planet does this pass for logic?

The other thing is that what is natural is often not right. Social liberals don’t understand this because they view human nature as being essentially good. Social conservatives do (or, ahem, should) because they think that evil is found in every human heart and therefore, just because it may feel natural to be drawn to porn, to use a woman for sex or even to kill someone–doesn’t make it right.  (We (ok, I) almost enjoy my personal struggle against some of my evil, yet natural, tendencies, and we (ok, I) generally go to the person concerned to apologize and to God for forgiveness when we (I) fail. But I’m digressing now.)

“It’s natural” isn’t a great argument, except where there are other substantive arguments to be made. Otherwise it should be reserved for moments such as my defence of moving to deodorant instead of anti-perspirant.

Here ends the rant.

_______________________

Brigitte adds: I believe I read somewhere that murder was a pretty old thing, too. Cain, I believe, invented it. Or maybe it was Brutus. Not sure. So, can I go out and murder those who stand in my way?

______________________

Andrea adds: Go to town, Brigitte. People have been doing it for a long while so it’s AOK.

______________________

Véronique adds: Ah the “natural” argument… I’ve heard it from every side: abortion is natural, working mothers are against nature, the list goes on.

It’s like “progress”, which is usually a good thing –pro-choice people think themselves as “progressive” – until it isn’t: abortion has happened throughout the ages, why fight it?

Or like “animals”: pro-lifers – anti-choice – view women as breeding stock … until you get to sterilization and euthanasia. Then treating people like animals is the dignified thing to do.

Antibiotics, vaccines and c-sections are not natural. Unlike abortion.