Two things when it comes to abortion and the media: 1) Journalists are undeniably pro-choice, more so than the public at large and 2) Pro-lifers are given to exaggerated fears of media conspiracies of silence as a result. “The MEDIA,” I will hear, “are DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSING pro-life stories x, y, z.”

It’s almost certainly true that they are. But then there are cases where [insert pro-life story here] wasn’t a terribly newsworthy one. And finally, given that reality, pro-lifers are getting savvy to the notion that we have to try harder. Write better. Be more active. Etc. I’m not saying the media aren’t silent on items where they ought to report. They are. However, I’m accepting that this is the case and saying pro-lifers should engage in “a little less conversation, a little more action,” in the words of the One Eternal King, by whom I mean, naturally, Elvis. (Which we are and it’s resulting in greater coverage, more fair coverage, one story at a time.)

That was by way of intro to say that there is some special kind of silence happening on the Gosnell case in the States. I agree with this column. The abortion distortion is at major play here. Were the topic anything other than abortion, this story would indeed be front page news. But it’s awkward, isn’t it, when your support of “abortion rights” conflicts with the cold, harsh reality of what that looks like.

You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights. The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.

Ok people, no one can compel me to read French like the one and only Véronique Bergeron, once ProWomanProLife blogger, now over at Vie De Cirque.

Here’s a little bit from her bio on our site:

Bergeron got pregnant with her first child at 21 while in law school. “As soon as the little line turned blue, it became clear that what I thought would be a no-brainer – abortion — was really excruciating,” says Bergeron. Another formative influence was the complete and utter disbelief of her peers that she would do something so stupid as to “keep” the baby and ruin her professional life. “That’s when I realized that women may have been liberated but liberation was achieved by excluding their reproductive abilities. I advocate for a complete liberation of women that includes the fact that they bear and deliver children.”

This is the birth story of her first daughter. Even if you don’t read the post, please do scroll through the pictures. It’s like a photo-journal. We end with a beautiful photo of her daughter. (This embryo, so irrelevant, well, it became a person. Imagine that.)

Please also note that I scroll through the photos and I see a young Véronique. And I consider myself at 22. And I consider that I wouldn’t likely have had the maturity level or courage to keep the baby. Therefore, no judgment here on those women/girls who do have abortions. Just a sense of wanting more and wishing we had more role models like Véronique.

I’m struck at the wide gulf between a pro-life and a pro-choice view of Kermit Gosnell. From this late term abortionist’s trial, we are getting some of the most gruesome testimony ever to be heard.

Pro-lifers say: This is a natural outcome where your business is killing babies. Inevitably, you are going to end up killing one who makes it out alive, and it’s not going to be pretty or easy. This is the logical extension of a view that women have sole decision making power of life and death over their children.

Pro-choicers say: This would never happen were it not for restrictive laws on abortion clinics, put forward by pro-lifers. If pro-lifers weren’t out restricting early term abortions, we’d never see women with their backs against the wall forced to go to butchers like Gosnell.

The point of intersection is that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers think Gosnell is a butcher.

Pro-lifers say it is inherent in the business. Pro-choicers argue not, because they think early term deaths aren’t really deaths at all, or, alternatively, matter less because they are early term.

I don’t know why I felt inclined to write this post. I suppose I didn’t want to write the typical “Woah! This is disgusting!”

But really. I am pro-life, and this is disgusting. I challenge pro-choicers to consider the logical extension of their worldview.

Rest in peace, Margaret Thatcher. A strong woman and a role model, whether or not you liked her politics, which I (mostly) did.

Very tragic story told through photos. Following up on yesterday’s post, we have health care in Canada and women don’t die in childbirth. For this we can and should be very grateful.

Well, articles like this one are what happens when academics study topics whilst refusing to speak to people who are actually engaging in said topics.

Paul Saurette here claims that if M-408 becomes about freedom of speech, then anti-abortion activists have cunningly won a significant victory.

The problem is in his thinking that anti-abortion activists actually want to be free speech activists. The people I know who are engaged in the fight for life actually want to debate abortion, not free speech, but because we are so often told we can’t speak freely, we end up talking about free speech. He doesn’t know this, because he doesn’t talk to pro-life activists. Not me, anyway. Perhaps he’s been around the block speaking to others.

I also had a good solid laugh because apparently funding to the status of women department actually correlates to increased women’s rights for him??

Say it with me, because I’m guessing you do too. We all have “enough,” even, more than “enough” to make us happy.

Reading this Atlantic Monthly piece from July 2012 reminds me of this fact. The author’s son is disabled and she describes how she cares for him and is still happy. This is the kind of view into life that no student in first year facing an unplanned pregnancy can have. I wish this author would do public speaking. Maybe she does, for all I know. It’s an inspirational story.

For all the people who are puzzled by my seeming happiness, I’ll be glad to let them know my “secret.” I’m not in denial, I’m not on antidepressants, and I don’t live in a fantasy world. I have a wonderful husband and I am pursuing a career I’ve dreamed of since I was nine years old. I have a beautiful son, friends, and a working stove. I am not paraplegic. I have parents who, through luck and fate, had me here in the United States, and not in North Korea. I live in a time where my awful vision can be corrected with glasses. I am a college graduate. I am never hungry unless I choose to be.

_______

Faye adds: You know those snapshot memories we probably all have from when we were kids? A moment captured in memory, without much context?

I have one where I’m young – young enough to be playing with some toy on the floor as my dad watches the news. At one point, my dad  turns to me and asks me whether I realize how lucky we are to have been born in Canada, and to live here.

As a child, I had no context for what his comment meant, but for some reason that brief exchange stuck with me. I remember it each Canada Day and every time I read about something truly horrific happening elsewhere in the world.

(And yes, in this same country, a doctor suggested to my mother that an abortion might be the best response to her pregnancy with me, but I digress.)

A new poll out today. You can see it here.

In today’s Ottawa Citizen, we have a blasé defence all abortions, because, apparently:

They [fetuses] are not persons for they have no interests; they lack the self-consciousness necessary for having interests.

Professor Mark Mercer starts by saying:

That the fetus you are carrying is female is certainly a terrible reason to have an abortion

Here’s a link to Jennifer Derwey’s assessment of Mark Mercer debating Stephanie Gray from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

This is a great article by Barbara Kay, with some instructive, pithy one-liners about the hypocrisy of feminists not supporting M-408. I’m going to use this one again, for sure:

Radical feminists have chosen a pathologically pure right to abortion and a refusal to judge the culture of others over their solidarity with the principle of gender equality. They are as irrational as those who would refuse to condemn murder on the grounds that it might lead to a reinstatement of the death penalty.