Great article, here. I had the opportunity to meet some of these sisters, not too long ago. I really liked them. I will openly admit that meeting nuns has changed everything I thought about them. (Are they educated? Are they fun? Do they know how to have a good laugh? Why on earth would you choose to… be a nun? Those are just some of the questions that crossed my mind.) Anyway, back to how meeting these nuns (and others) changed my stereotypes. They are educated. They are fun. Had a great conversation with one sister in particular. Finally, (and they can’t in my opinion emphasize this enough) they were definitely non-judgmental. There is no such thing as “the unforgivable sin,” and I felt a strong sense of compassion and peace in their presence. There are people out there who convey peace in their very being. I am not one of them. But these sisters are.

I hope someday that I might be able to help them out. I wish them every success.

From the McGill Daily:

The final motion, on banning discriminatory groups on campus, was led by statements from authors Maddie Ritts and Liam Olson-Mayes explaining their choice to single out pro-life groups, stating that they are necessarily discriminatory and that “by allowing pro-life groups, we condone and accept their position,” and targeting the Silent No More campaign. After extensive debate and votes on multiple amendments, including one to strike direct reference to pro-life groups in the resolution, the entire resolution failed to pass.

…is hardly the right way to do sex ed. I can’t help but think this idea is just dumb. Let me try and transport myself back to my teen years….Yup, I’m pretty sure I would have thought it was dumb back then, too:

If players get a question wrong, the Sperminator shoots their character with sperm, but if the question is answered correctly, their character uses a “condom shield” to shoot the sperm back at the Sperminator. A “Myths Maniac” also addresses and dispels faulty sexual information teens often hear at school or from friends.

_____________________

Brigitte adds: Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww!!!!

This opinion editorial is worth a read. It represents a fringe view, dressed up in moderate clothing. The author believes that access to abortion and contraception have propelled women to be successful in life and therefore that maternal health initiatives in developing countries ought to include access to abortion and contraception:

…It has been decades since Canadian women were denied access to contraception and abortion. The ability to decide when to have children is directly linked to women’s physical and financial wellbeing. It is the reason women now dominate law schools and medical schools in Canada and are an increasingly powerful force in the business and professional worlds.

This isn’t true, as women have been successfully balancing kids, schooling and power since before biblical times. A little longer view (prior to the 1970s) really is called for. Women are not “successful” because of abortion or contraception. (As a side note, both of my grandmothers had only two kids. This prior to the existence of “The Pill.” How did they do it? Not a question I’d ask, in particular because it would have happened via translation by my parents, but apparently without taking a daily dose of hormones. But I’m getting off topic here.)

Now I’d agree with her that Canadians are apathetic about abortion. If pressed about it, Canadians might conclude that if a woman has to have an abortion, they’d like it to be safe. But as recent polls show, Canadians are entirely unaware of our abortion-friendly culture. They don’t know that abortion is permitted for any reason at any time throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

This reality occurs when apathy and extremism hold hands. Canadians who don’t care on the one hand have tacitly partnered with an extremely small group of pro-abortion fanatics on the other, those who believe abortion constitutes care. These fanatics also believe that gender equality means being exactly the same. Ie: women should have the unilateral right to wipe out their offspring, all the while having as much sex as they want. This is the “unfettered copulation equals women’s rights” point of view. Most Canadians reject that, too.

And taking the whole thing abroad, well, most of us with even a passing familiarity of life in the developing world are aware that women in Canada don’t die in childbirth because of… modern health care, not because of access to abortion. This thing called modern health care is something women in developing countries don’t have.

Abortion is not basic. It’s not a right. And the idea that it helps women achieve anything has always been, is now, and always will be just a point of view.

It’s one this writer is free to hold. But to claim it represents anything more would be as foolish as if I claimed “I’m pro-life, therefore all women are pro-life.”

Abortion is not care. Not here, not abroad. The Conservatives should just keep repeating, as they have, that they’d like to help improve maternal health. And leave these swooning fringe feminists in the 1970s section of a women’s studies textbook, where they belong.

________________________

From your friendly fact checker: How do they get these numbers?

“We would argue if you’re really going to tackle maternal health and morbidity you’ve really got to tackle safe abortion because, in the developing world there are more than 19 million unsafe abortions every year and the toll that takes on women, particularly young women, is enormous.” The federation estimates that of 500,000 annual maternal deaths, complications from unsafe abortion account for approximately 70,000, or 13 per cent.

I’m genuinely curious. Because many of the countries in the developing world don’t keep stats of any kind on maternal health, or health care in general. As a result, data on abortion would be harder still to get. Cripes–Canada doesn’t make abortion-related data available.

So how is they are able to estimate these numbers abroad?

________________________

For no reason at all, Brigitte would like to point out that Andrea is one heck of a fact-checker. Ask me how I know…

Another great column on what exporting abortions abroad is really about:

“Population control,” through the United Nations or otherwise, has always consisted of “breeding instructions for the blacks, browns, and yellows.” And this is precisely what Ignatieff is selling, to the sort of people who want to buy it.

So when we talk maternal health, let’s talk maternal health. It is cultural imperialism of the very worst kind to take some Harvard-educated feminist’s mantra of “my body, my choice” and export it to cultures where they don’t think of killing their unborn babies as a solution to problems.

News item: You can get pregnant any time before menopause.

Again, to repeat: Sex and pregnancy are linked.

Starting with the first sentence:

Like anything that involves killing babies, abortion tends to be controversial, and remains so in Canada more than 40 years after a bunch of white males decided to relax the common-law restraints on this practice. It is controversial in other countries, too: check out the United States, for instance, or the various European countries, in most of which it has long been “open season” on the unborn.

And it is a splendid column carrying on throughout. Killing babies remains a very difficult thing to defend, done only with the special sort of politically correct gymnastics of those who call abortions “abortion care”–nice try. But when I read this sort of fine column and I understand that I have logic, science and clearly, some good writers on my side, I get depressed because in the end, we do not live in a pro-life country. BUT THEN, I think, how much more depressing to be pro-choice–without logic or science on your side, just a very apathetic media and a couple of old-school feminists who won’t be around much longer. (Editor’s note: Very uncharitable, Andrea, shouldn’t that remain your “inside voice?”)

So while University of Ottawa was happily hosting me to discuss why being pro-life is pro-woman, University of Victoria banned their pro-life club. Because it “inherently discriminates” against women. Clearly, some work remains.

An Ottawa University student writes an open letter to Michael Ignatieff. Nice. These students are impressive:

As a 22-year-old Canadian woman, I felt I needed to inform Ignatieff that there is by no means a Canadian consensus in favour of abortion. I believe that it is scientifically indisputable that abortion is the act of terminating a human life.

She references last night’s talk. I think it went well, but then again, I gave the talk. So when it shows up on YouTube, watch and decide for yourself! There were no attempts to shut us down, however, which on campuses across Canada these days is rare. I tend to think it’s because the position I take is actually so common sensical, that protesting it…would rightly make the other side look foolish. I do think it would be really fun to debate someone like Carolyn Bennett. Now that, that would be a great debate. We shall see if such a thing could come to pass in the future…

Thank you very much to the students of Ottawa University for their hard work and their courageous, public stance. Certainly seemed to be a large and thriving club, which is indicative of very good things for the future.