ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Andrea Mrozek

Old stereotypes die hard

by 8 Comments

Meant to mention this. After the march on Thursday I went to the Rose Dinner, a Campaign Life Coalition event.

At my table: A policy writing woman, a nurse (female), a woman in politics, a female student of political science. Another woman working in policy, and some women over at the other end I never got a chance to talk to. Two men at our table of ten.

To think, pro-choice types had me convinced I’d meet a man doing this pro-life work. And everywhere I go–women, only women–as far as the eye can see. I’m just saying.

______________________________

Rebecca adds: Based on my very circumscribed experience (my acquaintances skew academic, liberal and secular) pro-lifers tend to be women. I was pleasantly surprised by the number of men, including some young men, at the marvellous conference in Halifax last weekend. Most of the women I know are pro-choice but feel strongly that they would never have an abortion themselves; most of the men I know think it’s a very good thing indeed that abortion lets them off the hook if they accidentally get someone knocked up. This makes a sort of sense to me; abortion is something that’s done to women’s bodies, to a baby within a woman’s body, and I can see why women dislike it on a visceral or intuitive level more than men do.

Of course, because I spend most of my time around academic, liberal and secular types, I have come across some men who are pro-life, but have had the metaphorical stuffing beaten out of them whenever they voice this, and so have learned to keep quiet.

When life imitates the Onion

by 4 Comments

I believe the Wall Street Journal used to–perhaps they still do–have a section called “When Life Imitates the Onion.”

This piece qualifies.

______________________

Rebecca adds: “We accept as a basic truth the idea that everyone has the right to marry somebody.”

Excuse me? Since when? Children don’t have the right to marry somebody. People in jail, in most jurisdictions, don’t have the right to marry somebody. The certifiably insane don’t have the right to marry somebody, nor does Canadian law accept proxy marriages, or plural marriage, or marriage between first degree blood relatives.

Marriage is a stamp that society puts on a relationship. Not all societies have the same rules about marriage, but they all have rules, formal and informal, and they have by and large been served well by them. If your society declines to put its stamp on your relationship, you’re not married. In Israel, which has no civil marriage, you can only be married by clergy, and almost all clergy there insist on marrying within the faith, so Jews have a great deal of difficulty marrying non-Jews, Muslims non-Muslims, and Christians non-Christians.  This could be a good thing or a bad thing but it’s consistent and coherent.

“Jennifer Finney Boylan is a professor of English at Colby College.” Of course. Some things are so preposterous only an academic could believe them, to mutilate, er, sorry, re-assign a phrase.

I’d say the legal status of his/her marriage is about the least of Professor Boylan’s problems.

A fight we can’t lose

by 2 Comments

Interesting article, and very hopeful on the pro-life front:

The pro-life movement is arguably more comfortable with the language of rights and liberties than its opponents. Abortion foes are defending a right to life grounded in the Declaration of Independence, after all, whereas pro-choicers are defending more nebulous rights (privacy, autonomy, etc.) supposedly grounded in “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution.

The article discusses marriage, life and Obama. Now I happen to also be in favour of two person, man/woman marriage. And that is a position I’ve also attempted to argue in the public square.

It is a million gazillion times easier to defend life in the public square–precisely because the arguments–and the sound bites–are rights based. They are equality based. Equality and dignity for both mom and child. There’s this shaky notion pro-abortion types put forward that abortion serves women’s rights because they are “in control of their own bodies” but it’s a superficial argument, and one that is fairly easily overcome by unpacking the euphemism and looking at what really happens.

In short, I believe very strongly that combatting abortion is a fight we can’t lose.  And that’s good news.

________________________

Rebecca adds: I still can’t see how abortion can be construed as part of a right to privacy.  Our Dear Leader Trudeau famously quipped that government has no place in people’s bedrooms.  I’m not aware of many abortions that take place in bedrooms, and even the most die-hard libertarians would have a hard time defending the idea that government has no place regulating clinics and hospitals, especially when they’re run by public funds.

But let’s go with the idea that abortion involves “privacy” and shouldn’t be interfered with by the state that it stems from something that takes place in the bedroom.  If someone is raped in a bedroom, is it none of the state’s business?  What about a murder in a bedroom?  The proposition that something that happens in a private residence, or has something to do with sex, is inherently private is patently absurd.

I suppose the standard libertarian position would be that rape and murder are the government’s business even if they happen in bedrooms because the injured party doesn’t consent.  To the best of my knowledge, the informed consent of all parties involved in an abortion never takes place, either.

An interview with Ezra Levant

by 6 Comments

shakedown-cover-medium

When I got a copy of Ezra’s book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, and began reading it, I started thinking about the implications for the life debate. Not too long ago, no one knew what Human Rights Tribunals were, and where people had heard of them, they just didn’t care. Not unlike the abortion debate–people just don’t really care.

So I thought an interview with Ezra was in order to find out if and where some comparisons lie. Just by the by, yes, I worked for Ezra at the Western Standard, for two years. And au contraire to what gossipy lefties in the blogosphere write, I don’t ever try to conceal this because I’m proud of it. [Read more…]

Amnesty

by Leave a Comment

How did Amnesty International go off the rails? They used to do good things–advocating for political prisoners and the like. Then at some point they decided to advocate for expansion of abortion access.

Now I learn they are losing funds. Hard economic times notwithstanding, this is a funny post on why, oh why, that might be.

‘We are faced with a severe crisis here at Amnesty International,’ goes the pleading donation appeal. Yes. Well. I have no doubt you are, Mr. Cox. That could have something to do with the fact that you are no longer about helping political prisoners subjected to torture and death, and have instead dedicated yourselves to expanding the abortion license worldwide? When you mutate into another garden-variety promoter of the culture of death, it rather stands to reason that people who think you should be doing what you were founded to do and not the exact bleedin’ opposite will find other places to send their money. Somehow your appeal letter neglects to mention this salient fact.

Mission creep is a terrible thing.

(h/t Deborah Gyapong)

Happy Mother’s Day

by 3 Comments

mothersdayflowers

Just got off the phone with my mom, which reminded me that perhaps a post is also in order. A very happy Mother’s Day to all the moms who read this blog, and a thank you to those moms who find time to post on ProWomanProLife, too. (I don’t know how you do it. I really don’t. But barring any conversions to the Amish, I hope you keep on doing it.)

_______________________

Brigitte would like to add: I was just driving through Amish country in upstate New York an hour or so ago and, well, maybe I’ll stick with electricity after all.

More from China

by Leave a Comment

There are cruel side effects to the one-child policy. There are also cruel side effects to our abortion-friendly policies here in Canada, but that’s the whole point of this blog. More on China specifically, here.

Even if the one-child policy had not had such cruel side effects, there would be good reason for abandoning it. Once a young society, China is aging fast. Demographers say it is the first country to grow old before growing rich.

I don’t think we are as outraged by this policy as we ought to be. Perhaps we’ve heard about it for too long, and it no longer takes hold. Women in China have employers checking their cycles and other such nonsense. I have a book on my table here called Population Control, by Steven Mosher, which I intend to read just as soon as I can. Whether China or Canada, we have to move away from this idea that people are a burden.

Meta