A two-child policy. Seriously, people. We need to get over the overpopulation myth.
On legitimate choices
I’m looking forward to reading this book, Girl in Glass. Just heard an interview on NPR yesterday with the author, who is the mother of the “distressed baby” born at 25 weeks. Here’s an article about the story. I never heard about the initial controversy.
In an age of CEO gaffes and snafus, one in particular drew significant backlash last year.
At a town hall with employees, AOL Chief Executive Tim Armstrong explained his reasoning behind the cuts that had recently been made to the company’s retirement benefits: He blamed rising costs linked with the Affordable Care Act — and, more specifically, he blamed the costs of covering two “distressed babies.”
Some other highlights:
On her daughter’s time in the neonatal intensive care unit
The first time I reached into her incubator, she held onto my hand. Her fingers were so tiny that they hardly felt like fingers, but they grasped my finger, and from that moment on, I could see, you know, she’s fighting for her life, and the least that I can do as her mother is to be here with her.
On any given day I might feel, you know, that this is a good day — she gained an ounce, her oxygen levels are steady, her heart rate is steady — and then, three hours later, her lung had collapsed or her weight had plummeted. And, you know, I have to say there’s nothing like having a child on life support for three months to give you perspective on what matters.
What a painful time this must have been. I love the respect the author shows this tiny person, fighting for her life.
Of course all the pro-choicers in the world say they too love this story. Because the mom wanted to have this baby, it was right and good for her to be born. But if she had not wanted the baby, then it would have been right and good to have an abortion. For anti-choicers like me, we are saying some things are not a choice. Everyone is anti-choice in some ways. So the question is what are legit choices for you? And by what standard do you decide?
Deanna Fei is the mother of Mila, born at 25 weeks, and author of Girl in Glass
The Pill does not advance women’s rights
Nonetheless, I still say it should be made over the counter:
All this said, yes, please do make the Pill over the counter. Perhaps when it sits beside Tylenol on a drugstore shelf, advocacy groups will stop yammering on about how the Pill is a major component of women’s rights. Or that it is patronizing when doctors show concern. Perhaps then we will stop targeting excellent doctors who won’t prescribe it for very good reasons.
Which gets interpreted by Huff Post commentators as meaning I want to reduce access to all contraception. If you are pro-woman and pro-life, please feel free to leave a reasonable comment, for or against the Pill (so that Huff Post folks can misinterpret and distort what you say, sigh.)
Hush
Definitely is a lot you can’t say about abortion, because the topic is too political. I don’t know that the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” aren’t part of the problem when it comes to getting good information. Nonetheless, those are the labels we got for the political side of the debate. The thing is that I believe once you get more information, you are more likely to be pro-life. First just for yourself and then for others too.
This looks like it will be an interesting documentary. It’s called Hush.
Youtube censorship
Do you think this video should be censored? Just became aware that it had been. The creator of the video is suing.
Movie to Movement exists to discover, create, and promote works of art that highlight the dignity and sanctity of human life—and do so beautifully. We were thrilled to learn of “What Was Your Name”, a music video that did all that, which was burning up Youtube, thanks to the thousands of people who were moved by its message. We went to look for ourselves, and found that it was gone. Down the memory hole, thanks to arbitrary policies of content censorship in place at Youtube. This wasn’t the first time that Youtube has done something like this, and it won’t be the last, but we’re proud to be helping the makers of “What Was Your Name”, evade the censors. That’s why we’re helping to promote the film on Vimeo, at iTunes, and on the artist Joyce Bartholomew’s website. Go check it out. You’ll see why we want you to share it—and why some people don’t. And we publicly support the makers of “What Was Your Name”, in their lawsuit against Google, demanding that their video be restored and Youtube’s policies changed.
“He was cold and I wanted him to be warm and alive”
Get your tissues ready.
[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnpSaFtBaA#action=share]
So long as you’re not doing wrong things
This is “Canada without abortion, by choice.” So there’s some libertarian in me. You can not care for laws on abortion and still be profoundly against abortion, campaigning against it in the culture and with your friends.
This libertarian moment comes courtesy of a different story. Don’t bother clicking on the link unless you feel you must. It’s the story of a porn star in Gatineau, who had sex with 25 men in one night to pay for breast implants. The mayor of Gatineau was perplexed about this, and tried to stop the event.
To which the “adult entertainer” responded as follows:
He called the cops. He called everybody, but he couldn’t do anything. We know the law. We respect all the law,” de la Seine said. “We deal with Bell, we deal with Videotron, we deal with Telus because we are a supplier of porn movies for TV stations. And every movie we do has to have the stamp of the CRTC, so we can’t just do wrong things.”
So the CRTC approves? Why didn’t you just tell me that? Clearly, you “can’t just do wrong things.” Forgive me for thinking you were a greasy, conscience-free, selfish lech. I was wrong. You deal with Bell and Telus and, wait for it, the CRTC.
The only thing worse would be to be one of the mealy-mouthed bureacrats on the CRTC panel.
What is abortion if not a conscience issue?
War, death penalty, assisted suicide, abortion–these are all what one calls conscience issues.
Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 16, 2015, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain), seconded by Mr. Payne (Medicine Hat), — That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience. (Private Members’ Business M-590)
Harper allows for conscience rights by never allowing any MP to raise the issue:
As you know, in our party, as in any broadly based party, there are people with a range of views on this issue,” Harper said. “But I think I’ve been very clear as party leader.… As long as I’m prime minister we are not reopening the abortion debate.”
The NDP–ever so open to conscience here, too:
The NDP believes that “it’s not debatable, it’s not negotiable, it is a woman’s right to determine her own health questions and her own reproductive choices,” Mulcair said.
And no one can forget this from Justin Trudeau:
Justin Trudeau paused, looked over the heads of reporters, and started to respond three times before finally spitting out the surprise announcement that Liberal MPs elected in 2015 would be expected to vote against putting limits on abortion.
I suppose the only way to vote for conscience rights and then be stridently pro-choice is to ensure no pro-lifer ever enters your party. And if they have a change of heart while sitting as an MP, then you boot them out or shut them up. Conscience rights. What does that even mean? I suspect these days, there are a great many people who believe it means not entering politics.
Couldn’t say it better myself
On aborting babies who may have Downs Syndrome:
If we allow our governments to set up health programs that result in the systematic elimination of a group of people quite happy being themselves, under the false pretense of women’s rights, than that is a personal choice — one we have to face honestly.
I’d add this though. All abortion is done under the false pretense of “women’s rights.” There are far too many strong, unequivocally vibrant, ambitious, hard-working and equal women who are pro-life to pretend otherwise.
On changing minds
Changing someone’s mind on abortion is hard. There are parallels to the level of emotion in the vaccine debate. I received this article about a mom who changed her mind about vaccines and I thought there are some takeaways here for the business of discussing abortion.
My personal takeaways in talking with folks? 1) Avoid sarcasm. 2) Avoiding sarcasm means avoiding discussing with certain people who default to it so readily that they don’t have an open mind for discussion and will quickly suck you into the sarcastic abyss, which quickly leads to anger. Perhaps it starts with anger, I’m not sure. 3) Once you’ve decided who you will discuss with–and preferably it’s someone you know well, who you genuinely love in all ways,* always consider you could be wrong. But always consider you could be right, and the person you are talking with is sensible. 4) Finally, never expect a conversion right there. People take time.** If that person is me, they take a very long time to ruminate, go back and forth, consider the other side. No one, I’ve decided, will ever listen to my pro-life spiel and then say right in front of me, you know, you are right. I’ve invested myself in a flawed worldview, but today, all that is going to change.
Bold is mine.
When you changed your minds about vaccines do you think (honestly) there was anything anyone could have said to you to change your mind?
Maybe? How they approached me would have made a huge difference. Respectfully validating and addressing versus sarcastically dismissing my concerns and questions would have made a difference. Building our trust through caring, patient dialogue would have helped. Just talking to me at all like an intelligent caring person would have helped.
If someone had said in a genuinely kind tone. “Tara, you are a great mom who loves her kids dearly. I know there is so much confusion about vaccines. I care about you and want to help you make a informed decision you feel really confident in. Would you be willing to share some of your concerns with me so we could go through them one by one? In the end it’s your decision.*** I want to make sure you are totally confident in your decision since it’s so important.” I would like to think I would have stepped willingly into that kind of conversation. There was no threat or attack that would trigger defensiveness.
*This is what makes social media a bad forum for just about any genuine attempt at conversing. Everyone, at one point or another, ends up sounding shrill on social media. All it takes is one bad moment and you’ve done the Facebook post, and it’s all over for civil discourse.
**People do take time, and this is why I find strident pro-choicers to be false friends to a woman in need. We all need time to make good decisions. We all, I think, go back and forth with our decisions. Unplanned pregnancy does not allow for this. You can go back and forth, back and forth, but if you choose abortion, it is final and there is absolutely no undo button. If you choose life, can you decide not to parent? Absolutely. But if you choose abortion, you don’t ever get to reconsider. It’s cruel and the main problem is that a woman never knows whether she will be the one to mourn or regret her decision until it is all over. Some women don’t regret it. Hurray for them; it appears they all run for politics and make their point of view sound super mainstream. For the woman who does regret it, and lives a cycle of depression and pain for many years, well, strident pro-choicers have no answer for this and appear not to care, beyond blaming me for “creating stigma.”
*** This makes pro-lifers intensely uncomfortable. Do I wish abortion were not a choice? Absolutely. Is it available as one? Absolutely. We have clinics that are readily available and your loved one contemplating abortion does not need to talk to you first before she goes and books herself in. I don’t have time to go into the implications of what this actually means in practically attempting to counsel someone out of abortion, however, I do know mentioning that mothers make a choice for or against abortion is a sticking point with some pro-lifers. The mere fact that I acknowledge the facts on the ground leaves some pro-lifers wondering if I am actually pro-life. Frustrating, that.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- …
- 279
- Next Page »