ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Andrea Mrozek

Not exactly a chastity poster child, but

by 6 Comments

This is good advice for the world she travels in:

Lady Gaga believes celibacy is a good thing. The ‘Poker Face’ singer – who has previously admitted to being bisexual – suggests girls should save themselves for someone special. She said: “If you can’t get to know them, you shouldn’t have sex with them. It’s OK at this point, in this day and age, we have to grow up and we now know that we can’t be that free with love.

Look, anything that isn’t pointing and laughing falls into the role modeling category on this topic.

Incentives for young mothers

by 3 Comments

I somehow missed this last month. A good article about life, compassion and choice:

Add incentives for religious and private-sector organizations to provide money and means for young mothers who want to raise their babies themselves, and we’re starting to get somewhere. Again, if we stipulate that abortion itself is a tragic act, wouldn’t a robust and ubiquitous network of alternatives be helpful? When you offer people good choices, bad laws become irrelevant.

Naturally I’m onside with this, since we here at PWPL are dedicated to making our current bad law/legal vaccuum irrelevant. The tricky part is how to create those incentives. Young women today know where to go for an abortion. It is so easy. Since I can’t stop them on the sidewalk (bubble zone laws and this strikes me as on the late side, anyway) what’s a girl to do?

I continue to brainstorm on that point.

As a side note, the world needs more pro-life asset managers.

Woah, Nellie

by 1 Comment

Keep in mind live tweeting the abortion by RU-486 was supposed to normalize the procedure and make all of us feel so super duper comfortable with it.

Here, Jill Stanek, a pro-life blogger in the States chronicles the live abortion tweets. 

By the end, they’re agonizing to read, forget about actually experiencing the ordeal.

Initially I just thought the whole thing was sad but was prepared to say this woman live tweeting her abortion ain’t my target audience and let it go.

But reading Jill Stanek’s post makes the point loud and clear: if this is how an abortion-activist experiences RU-486 (she was totally non-chalant about it at the start) then how much worse for the rest of us?

Jill Stanek is right:

But the first rule of demystifying is one must herself be demystified before attempting to demystify. If not, the demystifying process may not go as anticipated, which is what happened in Jackson’s case. Only because Angie decided to live tweet her RU-486 abortion did we learn in actuality it’s a long, drawn out, painful process. For that reason I thought Angie’s exposé was a worthwhile educational experience for us all.

Educational, yes. For me too.

But what about the remaining seven cents?

by Leave a Comment

Another good article about the purported gender gap:

Take the gender wage gap. To arrive at 70.5 cents, the report compares full-time annual wages between men and women. What it doesn’t mention is that men work more hours in a year than women do. Once you adjust for that, the gap narrows to 84 cents. And when you adjust for work experience and women’s preference for jobs in the public sector and social services, the gap shrinks to 93 cents.

So my question about the remaining seven cents is only partially tongue in cheek. Does that spell discrimination? Or do women lowball their salary requirements? Just a question. (I once lowballed my salary expectations so significantly that within three months of starting I had asked for–and received–a ten per cent correction.)

I just don’t see sexism in Canada as par for the course. I do agree that the national discussion needs to shift:

The plight (and rights) of aboriginal women is a serious matter. The growing marriage gap between highly educated and less-educated women – and the hugely unequal life impact this has on their children – is another.

And of course, there’s that little question of women’s rights and abortion and the manner in which that is misrepresented in the public square…But I’m on that one.

O Canada

by 5 Comments

So by now we’ve all heard about the Throne Speech and a line to examine our national anthem for gender bias. Apparently at least one Senator, Nancy Ruth, is already hot on this trail.

The Opposition has been quoted as saying this is proof the Conservative government pays only lip service to gender causes, while doing nothing.

But they are wrong. Working hard on nothing of any substance is a hallmark of old-school feminists and therefore, any government, Conservative or Liberal, that wants to curry favour with feminists will quickly find themselves brandishing the most useless of causes.

Real women are out and about, busy, working. Or raising families. Or both.

Welcome to politics.

Types of ammunition

by 1 Comment

I watched Sarah Palin on Jay Leno, and I have to say, I don’t find much of what she said to be controversial. A key difference between her life and mine might be that when my dad advises me on what ammunition to use, it’s figurative, not literal. Plus I got in big trouble for writing on my hands back in the day. Other than that, tax cuts, energy security, revitalizing the American spirit? Really, who can disagree with that?

Words matter…

by 2 Comments

…at the end of life as at the beginning. Here Margaret Somerville highlights how Quebec doctors aren’t likely to be able to debate legalized euthanasia well, since they don’t appear to know what it means:

Dr Barrette said that in caring for terminally ill people, “doctors are aware they can be charged with murder if they administer a ‘palliative sedative’ before a patient is on his or her last breath.” This is not euthanasia, although, like Dr Barrette, 49 percent of Quebec physicians recently polled mistakenly thought it was. Palliative means the sedative was necessary to relieve pain and suffering and was not given with an intention of killing the patient. That cannot result in a murder charge, or any other legal charge, unless the patient refused it.

Safety first?

by 2 Comments

I used to take large rocks out to our backyard and pound them with a hammer to see what was inside. When my parents found out they made me put on safety goggles but the exploration continued. Good times.

This article talks about letting your kids live a little:

The book’s title is “deliberately provocative,” Tulley says, and it’s meant as both a guidebook for fretful parents who want to loosen up and a “call to action for over-protected children,” with instructions on safe ways to experiment with dangerous things. “We create a false impression in our minds that children are in peril all the time and everywhere, when in fact, according to the most recent studies, this is the safest time in history for children,” he says. “There couldn’t be a better time to be running around outside playing.”

I agree, however, I have to ask–with two parents working, who takes care of the kid when the garden gate gets slammed in your eye? (This because you are chasing someone in tag, who rightly thinks, aha, I’ll slow her down by slamming the gate behind me…Yes, this also happened to me. Hello major black eye.)

So I agree and disagree–it is a safe age, and our kids could run around outside but empty neighbourhoods with no one home aren’t super conducive to that. Kids may well be coddled these days but they also don’t raise themselves and many neighbourhoods are empty after school. That doesn’t feel safe to me.

________________________

Brigitte adds: I was chatting with someone last night who was saying how difficult it was for kids to find friends to play with outside, since everyone was at some kind of supervised and organized activity, not just outside like we used to be way back in the dark ages (aka the pre-1995 era). I refrained from asking him what connection, if any, he saw between that phenomenon and the fact that most adults, including him and his wife, work outside the home so much.

Meta