“Twenty-one weeks after delivery of her second child, when the baby was diagnosed with a rare bone disease, Carol determined she had two options: keep the baby and have a child with a shattered skeleton that wouldn’t live very long or request a rare very late term killing.”

This story doesn’t say that, but in case you were wondering what I make of the front page story in the National Post today, my translation of the scenario above is pretty much it.

It may be worth noting that I am a compassionate, empathetic woman. I see a lot of pain around me; people come to me with their problems and I don’t turn a blind eye. I’m sorry–that’s not big enough a word–when parents lose a child, a baby.

Neither am I cold about how hard it must be to receive a diagnosis like this.

And yet.

I refuse to see a mother killing her child early as compassionate. It’s not right, and if that child were a mere 15 weeks older we would all agree. Yes, the child will die anyway, but that does not make killing right. I don’t know why it should be kosher to kill a kid in utero simply because that child will die, as predicted by our flawed and fallen medical world, which has made countless false predictions in the past.

When the only place that child will thrive is in utero, why not let her live for that time?

I know, I know. It’s a woman’s choice.

Life presents tough choices. I’m not living in some happy-go-lucky Pollyana bubble where everything always turns out perfectly. And somewhere out there, I’m not oblivious that “Carol” might read this, and I want to be considerate of her too.

I think there’s a bigger picture. “Carol” made her choice; I’m hard pressed to see how it was a good one.

…chronicled here. I’m truly sorry she had to experience this. The end result?

I no longer believe that abortion is “pro-woman.” It only serves to burden our minds, and hurt our bodies. If the doctor had recommended counseling, or if I had spoken to my parents, I am almost sure that I would have kept my baby. Perhaps not – but if I’d known about what I was going to put myself through, I definitely would have thought twice.

Thinking twice–before experiencing this–is what ProWomanProLife is all about.

And this guy is just the one to give it. Enjoy.

“Rare” is a play about people who have Down Syndrome. The actors also have Down Syndrome. Nothing upsets me more than abortion for disability. And seeing as 90 percent of Downs babies are aborted, it’s not surprising that this play has a pro-life theme, asking mothers not to kill their unborn children:

Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech, for example, segues into a scene about women who choose to have abortions rather than delivering children with Down syndrome.

Nicholas Herd, an emotive dancer who treats his homosexuality in a refreshingly matter-of-fact way, notes the rage he feels about that. Then, Nausbaum recites a letter she has written to pregnant women urging them to “be brave.” This seems like the slightly hair-raising point of the show: Here we are, dancing, singing and sharing – please, allow us to exist.

But the implications aren’t probed. If it’s cowardly for a woman to abort a child she doesn’t think she can handle raising because it has Down syndrome, then how is it right to abort a baby she thinks she can’t support for more prosaic financial reasons?

Rare may, indeed, be a rarity – a pro-life play. (Perhaps Canadian theatre’s most notable lack of diversity is in terms of ideology.)

Admirable that this writer did a review. Admirable that he is asking some of the right questions, yes. But note how he can’t seem to understand that aborting for Downs is wrong, as is aborting for more prosaic financial reasons. It’s like he’s coming at the issue backwards. He thinks abortion for any reason (example: financial) is OK. Now he’s faced with PEOPLE who are acting in a play, asking mothers to let their people live, so to speak. And faced with this, he does what any decent human being would do–acknowledge their right to exist. Yet if abortion for “prosaic financial reasons” is OK, why should abortion of people with Downs not be?

I’m hoping he’ll ponder his way to clarity on this.

Apparently, The Second Rape of Dr. Emily Pershing by B.J. LeCrae is a good read and available for mere cents on Amazon. Check it out! (I have not read it.)

Because of articles like this one. Who else can make a discussion of abortion and pornography funny?

The presence of a new baby or a pregnant woman would certainly mess up the storyline (I use the term loosely) of the typical porn film. Outside the porn industry, contraception with abortion as a backup delivers women to men for their use. Separating sex from conception removes constraints and responsibilities from men, and invites them to use women as objects. This is just as Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae, back in 1968.

You can check out her website, here.

[Editor’s note: I initially titled this post “Don’t click on that link” but that, in Twitter, looks like this is itself an actual bad post. Which it isn’t. The link I don’t want you to click on, is from Toronto Life, explained below.]

Lately, I’ve become even more concerned about the hyper-sexualized culture we live in. (I know, you thought it wasn’t possible. Andrea Mrozek gets more conservative than she already was! Amazing!)  I did not watch the Superbowl, but the really not at all socially conservative Jon Kay of the National Post had a Facebook status update thanking the NFL for making the half-time show into a “parade of harlots.” And I believe those words were in CAPS for emphasis.

Meanwhile, over at Toronto Life, there’s some sort of profile of Anna Silk and the show Lost Girl:

Where Lost Girl sets itself apart is the sex, and not just the sheer quantity of it, though Silk fakes more onscreen copulation than any other TV actor not contractually bound to HBO. Rather, it’s the series’ overarching erotic ethos that makes it stand out, a general attitude toward sex that saturates every scene.

“Erotic ethos” and “sex saturating every scene.” I cry foul and continue to ask anyone who will listen to join the prude revolution. I don’t care what you call me: prude, repressed, etc. I’ve heard it all before. Truly.

So I won’t link to this article. But I will discuss the problems associated with it–which I seem to be meeting everywhere I go these days. Hello, pornified culture, how do you do? I wasn’t looking to meet you, but I did, anyway. Please go away.

According to a recent (January 2013 study) risk factors for pre-term birth include:

education less than high school, having a previous medical condition, developing a new medical condition or health problem during pregnancy, being a primigravida, or being a multigravida with a previous PTB or a previous miscarriage or abortion.

I’m thinking I know which of those risk factors will become highly contentious and political? We’ll be free to talk about how education less than high school is a problem. We’ll be free to talk about how developing a new medical condition is a problem. We won’t be free to talk about how abortion is a problem.

Just an educated guess.

If you haven’t already, don’t forget to go to www.canadianTVfirst.ca and sign, so that Sun News can get equal treatment from the CRTC. Whether you love or hate Sun News is largely irrelevant, because a diversity of news voices is always good.

Meanwhile, here’s a clip of me speaking with Ezra about the latest scandal pertaining to babies born alive and left to die–how, we don’t know–when they were intended to be aborted.

Abortion is not a right. Neither are we losing said “right” as much as I’d wish that to be so. But we are on a slippery slope of a different kind when we hold hands with depravity, which is what killing a fetus past 20 weeks is. Thank you, Barbara Kay, for pointing this out:

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality. Is this really what most Canadians want, or are they just too cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby to speak up?