[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URIypadX3n0]
It was only a matter of time before this important information saw the light of day.
(Courtesy of The Shotgun.)
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URIypadX3n0]
It was only a matter of time before this important information saw the light of day.
(Courtesy of The Shotgun.)
There’s an art to blogging. You could unearth stories the mainstream media is not getting. You could piece together inaccuracies. You could connect the dots between reported events using your personal sources.
Or, you could link to a piece you already wrote, in the Post today. I believe it’s called “circular referencing.” (This piece will live permanently in our Notable Columns section, here.)
__________________________
Update: A friendly pro-lifer, well, two, to be perfectly honest, have raised objections to this:
To be fair, pro-lifers have not played their hand well, either. Mashing themselves between homemade sandwich boards and roaming the streets outside clinics has only ensured a place on the fringe beside conspiracy theorists adamant that 9/11 was an inside job.”
Why would this activity be so misplaced, so fringe, given what Paglia aptly identifies? Pro-lifers protesting outside clinics are only responding to the institutional death machines—in this here civilized society of ours.
“Sandwiched” pro-lifers outside clinics are responding bravely to the truth that Paglia knows.
So why did I write that then? In part, because that is how the mainstream media perceives those protesting, day in day out. I was thinking expressly of signs that read “Abortion is murder”–and how those do fall on deaf ears these days, simply because it’s been repeated too many times. It’s like warning labels on cigarette packages–they lose their potency when seen too many times. That doesn’t mean that some people won’t respond to them, though.
I think most every anti-abortion protest is a good one—and this will all come together in some fruitful, meaningful way (with a severe reduction in the number of abortions and a newly awakened, invigorated culture) sooner rather than later. Sandwiched pro-lifers: I’m sorry I disparaged your efforts.
______________________________
Rebecca says: I’m with Andrea on the counter-productive nature of sandwich boards, “abortion is murder,” and language such as “abortuaries.” Not because of inaccuracy – and if you’re talking only to people who already are prolife, all this is fine. But the reality is, for moderates and undecideds, let alone “choice” activists, this is tantamount to holding a sign saying “I am an extremist, do not take me seriously” over your head. Is your objective to be in the right, while ensuring that you’ll be written off? Or is your objective to persuade even one person to change his mind, to reconsider the received wisdom, to open up her heart to the possibility that the fetus in her womb is more than a clump of cells, akin to an appendix, to be destroyed if troublesome?
I understand the outrage and conviction and passion; I really do. But we’ll change how our society treats unborn babies (and other vulnerable people) by engaging other Canadians in debate and discussion, by appealing to their morals and ethics and intellects and feelings. This won’t happen if we alienate them even before we open our mouths, or if we make it easy for them to write us off as nutcases.
Having said all this, there is only so much one side can do to generate thoughtful and respectful discussion, and Camille Paglia aside, there is far too little of that on the pro-choice side.
_______________________________
Brigitte agrees: I don’t mean to offend (really, I don’t), but you ought to see it from the casual outsider’s point of view. Protesters usually have loser dust all over them. And no amount of complaining will change that. It doesn’t necessarily mean protests are useless. But they aren’t nearly as useful as protesters want to believe.
_______________________________
Andrea adds: Well. I do think a sign of protest on our dead quiet streets (no pun intended) can offer some new ideas to some people. And for me personally, it is a reminder that not everyone is apathetic, which is encouraging. A blog isn’t changing anyone’s mind either–nothing does, all on its own. I have tended to think that almost anyone being active on the issue helps change the culture. And that part of the column was not intended to disparage those protesting on the streets, but rather to think about what signs say–what might be more effective. I suppose given the pro-abortion status quo we’re all at loose ends for that answer. Protestors are not losers. How many massive changes worldwide were started because one person stuck their neck out? Countless.
______________________________
Rebecca comes back: One way to change minds is to challenge people’s preconceived (no pun intended) ideas. That’s one of the reasons why I was, and remain, so excited by PWPL; the site is testimony to the fact that you don’t need to be a Christian, a fundamentalist, or religious at all to believe in the sanctity of life; you can be a mother, or not, and yet recognize that a life begins when a child is conceived, not at some arbitrary later point in its development; you can live your life, vote, worship, and go about your business in any number of ways while believing that a culture of death is harmful to all of us, and that a society that truly empowers and values women will not perpetrate what has been described as the ultimate act of violence against women.
When I was younger I subscribed to the dogma I was taught: that pro-lifers are trying to impose patriarchal values on women, that they think sex is evil, that they seek to deny women the freedoms enjoyed by men, and so on. I tuned out friends and strangers alike who said that “abortion stops a beating heart.” The first crack in my certainty occurred when a mentor I respected, a former social worker, told me she had sleepless nights from time to time when she thought of the women she had helped obtain abortions. This gave me pause; someone who was in many ways kindred, whom I could not dismiss as uneducated, or unenlightened, did not argue with me, but simply shared something that made me reevaluate her, and my beliefs, and myself. She shook up the way I saw the whole issue.
Protestors are certainly not apathetic, and expose themselves to ridicule and harrassment and abuse for the sake of their principles, which is admirable. And they challenge those of us who agree with them, and make us ask ourselves if we could be doing more. But every time I walked by them when I was younger, they did not challenge my assumptions, they reaffirmed them, and I am sure I’m not the only person who has experienced that.
Oi ve. Some of these media commentators, Heather Mallick first and foremost, are like little kids.
The slurs continue. Here, and here we read about threats made against Heather Mallick, the result of her now infamous Mighty Wind column. I decry those threats. But I can’t help but think that Mallick set the tone and can’t now pretend she is above the fray. Her words–certainly not an example of brave decorum in an otherwise alarmist world:
Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?”
Her response to the threats? She is quoted here as saying:
The responses to my column proved me correct about the extreme right in the United States: they have a great misogynist rage in them,” Mallick said in an interview from Toronto on Saturday.”
Not liking Heather Mallick does not constitute misogyny. If that’s the case–then the better part of Canada is misogynist, too.
____________________________
Rebecca adds: “What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?”
Again, I am struck by how crass and derisive the language the loony left uses to describe sex is. Has any conservative commentator characterized a consensual relationship in such vulgar terms? Aren’t we supposed to be the uptight prudes, while they are all in favour of anything at all, as long as it’s consensual?
Folks. There are a lot of pro-life events coming up. Here’s a short list.
September 25: Toronto Right to Life—Hart House, at University of Toronto, yours truly speaking. Topic? The New Face of Feminism
September 26-28: National Campus Life Association conference, also in the Toronto area. I believe registration for this has closed
October 2-4: International Life Conference, Toronto
October 5: Life Chain
and finally, September 24 to November 2: something called 40 Days for Life is coming to Ottawa.
So much activity, so little time—pick your event and come on out.
A commentary today for your reading pleasure on Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique. (Just as I head out the door to a REAL Women conference here in Ottawa. How fitting!) I have read Betty, and found her largely absurd. (It’s the “motherhood as waste of human self” that stuck with me–now really. How did she teach that one to her daughter? But I digress.)
I continue to ponder how those second wave feminists took off–while being so anti-woman in many regards. And I think it has to do with this quote below–from the piece in the New York Sun that I’m linking too.
But her essential point was both down-to-earth and true: Postwar America had taken the ideal of femininity to absurd extremes. Women in the ’50s were encouraged to be childlike, passive, dependent, and “fluffy” (Friedan’s word).
When I look at the magazines in the grocery style aisle, I can’t help but think they are still, for all their “tough working women” rhetoric, consigning women to a “fluffy” bucket. And if not a fluffy bucket–they are certainly defining women in one way, and one way only.
I do believe women are happy and fulfilled where they are free to do what they want to do. The thought I have is that the current wave of feminism (and I lose track, so many of them crash into the shore) is as condemning, as unfriendly, as dictatorial as anything Friedan herself experienced.
The bubble zones around abortion clinics are interesting. They are an infringement on freedom of speech, and this has (possibly–I’m not a lawyer) broader implications. Example: If I run a Wal-Mart, say, and someone starts a protest of globalization outside my doors, and that offends me, might I get a bubble zone too, based on this precedent?
In any event, someone is sandwich-boarded up inside the bubble zone not to protest abortion, but to inform about the bubble zones. Read about it, here.
Soon after two plainclothes Vancouver police officers arrived and went directly into the building. They emerged 45 minutes later to speak with von Dehn, informing her that she was not breaking the bubble zone law, and adding that clinic workers were upset at her actions.”
Clever protest, that. Keep up the good work.
Just received a critique. How can we at PWPL take away medical treatment from women? Here’s the quote:
You people are just about as frightening as the men who seek to make this medical treatment unavailable to women. If not more so seeing as you are women. The women who find themselves in this situation should be free to choose and make their own informed decision and have access to whatever treatment or option they choose.
If it’s medical treatment–then it’s not a choice. And if it’s a choice, it’s not medical treatment. I don’t choose to have a colonoscopy. Or my appendix out. I listen to my doctor. I don’t waltz into her office and demand treatments. (Forget the fact that pregnancy is not an illness.)
So which is it, ardent pro-choicers? Hone in on your argument there, because this one’s pretty superficial.
_________________________
Rebecca says: I mostly agree, with a slight quibble. As a health consumer advocate (shameless plug) I would argue that in fact all medical care involves choices. Some of them are no-brainers – if you have an appendix about to rupture, choosing not to have surgery is tantamount to suicide – but lots of other legitimate medical choices exist, when deciding whether or not to use HRT in menopause, for instance, when choosing between treatments for cancer, each of which has its own risks and benefits, or even when choosing orthodontic treatment (pull some teeth to make more room, or have braces on for longer, and more painfully). The thing is, these are choices about treatment to address a medical problem.
One of the things feminists got right was insisting that pregnancy and childbirth are not medical problems. Putting on my Ivan Ilich hat, I agree that the construction of obstetrical care as a tool for managing the disease of pregnancy resulted in an incredible power imbalance in which (often male) obstetricians imposed a huge degree of control upon women. That model is no longer upon us. But if a healthy pregnancy is a natural part of life, not a disease (with which I fully concur) then abortion on demand is absolutely not a medical matter but a cosmetic one.
Save the girls–by not advertising “gender selection” kits. If one wonders whether abortion is good or bad, one might look at what it does–the world’s missing women being one of those outcomes.
India’s Supreme Court had last month asked the two companies plus Yahoo to respond to a complaint that they were illegally advertising do-it-yourself kits and expensive genetic techniques to find out an unborn baby’s gender. Activists said the products — which have not been scientifically proven to be accurate or safe — damage efforts to stem mass abortions of girls because of a traditional preference for boys in India.
Note to this dude’s family members: Guard your health. If you don’t–he’ll take you on a cruise only to pitch you overboard. Something about people who are not self-sufficient requiring too much “constant care and supervision.” What a classy guy.
So in the anti-abortion advocate’s eyes, a parent’s desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality.
Um, yes, you got it. It is upstanding morality to care for the weak and disabled.
This group “The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism” says they are “dedicated to advancing individual rights and economic freedom through Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.”
They might want to update the mission statement: “Dedicated to advancing the individual rights of healthy folks…” “economic freedom for self sufficient types” etc. I’d be happy to help them toward greater accuracy.
_________________________
Update: The words above are the “upclass” version of this. You can pretend to be erudite to conceal your contempt, or you can just make a t-shirt. (Quoting Kathy Shaidle on this one: “Stay classy, liberal America!”)
_________________________
Véronique adds: Hmmm, you know what I find “interesting”? I have recently been reading several Human Rights Tribunal proceedings through my day job. Regardless of what you think about the CHRT, all I will say is that there are some pretty messed up individuals out there. Anyway. Reading the quote from Andrea’s post reminded me of a lot of sample hate material dealt with by the tribunal. Except that you replace “severely disabled” by “blacks” or “jews” or “gays.” Now, you would never get away with that. But it is worth remembering, when arguing for “the rule of reason,” that you can make a reasonnable case for eliminating just about anyone on the planet. Well, except yourself of course. Because we all know that were everybody like me, the world would be a much better place. Lonelier too.
Update: I was looking for something on the National Post website when I stumbled upon this video http://www.nationalpost.com/multimedia/video/player.html?video=71742a12-b27c-4a66-a6e5-f49bf9e7c4da
At some point toward the end the mother comments about a letter-writer who posted a comment to the effect that had her daughter been a dog, she would have been put down by now.
So yeah. All this to say: there are some pretty sick people ou there. And I’m not referring to Kenadie.
I did not want to comment on this Camille Paglia piece until I read it in full. I’m glad I did. On top of being splendid prose, this piece is a boon to the pro-life movement.
Let’s get straight to the part that has raised the ire of pro-lifers. Paglia says abortion is murder and then adds she fully accepts abortion. Is this shocking? Perhaps. But every woman who has had an abortion is grappling with that very sentiment. This is the essence of the debate and why pro-lifers care at all in the first place. Never to curtail anyone’s choices–but rather to identify that a person is a person, even in the womb (was tempted to say no matter how small, with apologies to Dr. Seuss) and therefore elimination is not a choice. Paglia has put on the page what every strident pro-abortion activist accepts and knows. They simply don’t say it.
Paglia speaks of “the uneasy conscience of feminism…” and I know that well. It’s that silence that descends most every time the “A word” comes up. I like to think it’s the sound of people’s conscience contorting, writhing around what they know to be true and what they’ve been told they must say. Most women will never accept that murder is their special privilege.
Abortion is “the extermination of the powerless by the powerful,” again, Paglia’s words, which I will be sure to repeat. (If you don’t think abortion is the extermination of the powerless by the powerful, you’ve not watched one in progress, and you should.) Pro-abortion types fare better in the public square if they conceal, conceal, conceal. This is why Bill C-484 had to go. Because it would have started women and men thinking, thinking, slowing realizing–what are we doing? And that is the frightening consistency of pro-abortion types: keep abortion out of the public mind, because free thought is out of bounds.
I’ll take Paglia’s words one step further: the extermination of the powerless by the powerful begins with conniving and devious so-called supporters of women’s rights–those who lie about what abortion is and then convince everyone that access to abortion is a right–hey! this isn’t evil! It’s empowering! They know what Paglia knows–and cloak the act in comfy euphemisms. They meet women in their personal deserts and offer a refreshing drink of cyanide. Only they call it Sprite and add ice and one of those fun paper umbrellas.
Though Paglia’s conclusion is repugnant to me, she is not coercing anyone to her view. She hardly could–it’s not a very good slogan–“Murdering millions–in particular those who have done absolutely nothing wrong and can’t defend themselves! Join today!”
She says:
It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.
Bottom line: this kind of disquieting article does the pro-life movement a great service.
_______________________
Véronique adds: I doubt that Camille Paglia is a closet pro-lifer. Or that she would be delighted by our endorsement. That being said, I want to say how much I liked reading her article. She takes a strong position and she defends it to its logical end without rhetoric or slogans. This is someone I feel like I could have an intelligent conversation with. On the pro-choice side. That in itself gives me hope. Not so much that I could convince her because I don’t think I could. But it gives me hope that we can engage in these issues instead of avoiding them.