A poignant piece about the risks of having children in Uganda by the founder of Save the Mothers, one Jean Chamberlain. Then there’s this in the Hill Times (subscriber access only) suggesting the Liberals will push Harper to include abortion in his maternal health mandate for the G8.

At bottom, I think Canadians know that maternal health involves what Chamberlain describes and that including abortion is deeply political and actually irrelevant when women are bleeding to death after delivery.

More soon, by the way, on my discussions with World Vision vis-a-vis maternal health and abortion… Stay tuned.

Abortion takes the lives of blacks disproportionately. And reported in The Times, no less. All the very horrifying news that’s fit to print:

Abortion opponents say the number is so high because abortion clinics are deliberately located in black neighborhoods and prey upon black women. The evidence, they say, is everywhere: Planned Parenthood’s response to the anti-abortion ad that aired during theSuper Bowl featured two black athletes, they note, and several women’s clinics offered free services — including abortions — to evacuees after Hurricane Katrina.

The idea that women earn less than men is a mainstay idea of old school feminists. That’s it’s not true would take the wind out of their sales and funding out of their pockets.

This column is all about how if women do earn less than men it’s typically for very good reasons, like they work fewer hours:

Few people would advocate more women living in poverty, but if we are going to have a serious discussion of how best to tackle the issue that more women than men live in poverty, we need to face reality. Sadly, the report issued by a collection of advocacy groups fails miserably on that count. The group uses conjecture rather than facts and when confronted with facts, changes the rules to suit themselves.

If women have bridged a gender wage gape, why perpetuate the old myth?

You can see my talk about why being pro-life is a pro-woman stand, here.

Thanks again to the students for having me!

I was going to say in response to this article that if we stopped using euphemisms, then this mother wouldn’t be forced to field terrible, offensive questions. Her son has Downs Syndrome, and other parents apparently have the audacity to ask: Why didn’t you get prenatal testing? Which is the same as asking Why didn’t you abort the fetus? Which is the same as asking Why didn’t you kill your child?

Now most of us feel that’s not the way we want our culture to go, but not, apparently everyone. Check the Globe’s comment section. The discussion quickly becomes one of the burden  Downs children place on all of us, and how they would be better off dead. We all would be really, because the cost of treating them and educating them is high.

So this mother (and parents of children of varying abilities everywhere) need all the support they can get. Because she’ll be fielding the “why didn’t you kill your child?” question for some time to come.

(Filed under our “eugenics” category.)

_______________________

Patricia adds: My daughter is five years old and I still get the “did you know she had DS” question. It’s especially disheartening when it comes from a medical professional; I always wonder if what they’re really asking me is whether I want her treated or would I prefer that she go quietly into that good night?

The comments section of the Globe piece was similarly disheartening. Even assuming that people with Down Syndrome impose a higher cost on the public purse, I always thought that, as a society, we were supposed to care for the “weak”. Isn’t “helping widows and orphans” the irrebuttable argument in favour of taxation? Isn’t that what the public purse is for? I realize I have a vested interest in this point of view, but wouldn’t you rather your tax money go to speech therapy or a special education teacher for a child with Down Syndrome or autism than to any number of half-baked government schemes that it is routinely poured into by the bucketful?

But I’m not even prepared to concede “high cost to society” argument. My law school education was heavily subsidized and I’m not sure exactly what obvious benefit to society that provided. I suspect the same could be said of many other highly subsidized higher educations. My daughter won’t be draining the public purse for that purpose. She won’t be seeking a massive bail-out of her automobile company. Nor will she be seeking billions of dollars for wind-power development.

She is however highly functional and industrious, even at five. (You should see her scrub floors.) Everyone who meets her, loves her. (Admittedly, she’s five; not many five year olds aren’t likeable.) She turns the rough and tumble little boys in her class into gentle caregivers – when she’s not playing dragon with them. She says “hi” to the old man having coffee by himself at the next table at the local cafe. I’m guessing she brings some joy to the cashier at our local No Frills because that cashier always makes a point of coming over to talk to her. I don’t know what she’ll end up doing, but I suspect her net contribution to society will be far greater than that of most people so niggardly in their view of life that it would even occur to them to ask how she came to see the light of day.

________________________

Véronique adds: Patricia, your post about the public purse and the potential of people with DS reminded me of a newspaper ad I cut out to show my bioethics students. It showed a boy with Down Syndrome and the caption was (paraphrasing): “He will probably never be Prime Minister or cure cancer. But neither will you.”

Missed this Globe column on Ignatieff’s mistake in bringing up abortion as part of maternal care. Also missed this column on Valentine’s Day! This may be because I forgot to do a Happy Valentine’s Day post. Guess I was busy watching the Olympics, but since I quite enjoy the opportunity to bake heart shaped cookies with pink icing, I’ll wish our readers a Happy Valentine’s Day today!