I find this piece to be rather weak. Discussing the personhood status of the fetus does not inject irrationality into the abortion debate. It’s a critical point:

Yet, there is no rational way to decide when personhood begins. Thus, the abortion debate has always been infected with irrationality. But, even if we assumed that personhood begins at conception, why should that “person” have sanctuary in the body of someone who doesn’t want it there? In short, it simply doesn’t follow that the attribution of personhood should resolve the question.

The abortion debate should focus less on the mysteries of embryonic life and more on the limits of governmental power. This would entail facing squarely how far the government of a democracy should be authorized to regulate what people — in this case, women — can do inside their own bodies. It might help to examine other situations where the relationship of government and our bodies is at issue.

Our law rarely compels people to be Good Samaritans. Even though parents are required, for example, to look after their under-age children, they are not required to give their children their blood, bone marrow, or organs. Even if the conduct of withholding parents is seen as immoral, there has been no serious suggestion for making it unlawful. Our society has long believed that compulsory organ sharing is repugnant to democratic principles. This consensus provides a much sounder basis for resolving the abortion controversy.

If we compel parents to take care of their children, there is something important in deciding what constitutes “children.” If a human being can only live in one place, the womb, for nine months–what then? Certainly there is sacrifice on the part of the woman, pro-lifers can’t ignore that. At the same time, this is a temporary (nine month) imposition whereas abortion imposes a death sentence on the child. The two can’t be weighed equally and you can’t figure out whether this is actually a death sentence for a child if you refuse to consider the personhood arguments. Seems to me that Alan Borovoy finds it convenient to claim “we can’t know,” while refusing to actually look.

I missed this yesterday: 

A foul-smelling envelope that prompted House of Commons security to call out Ottawa’s hazardous materials team Thursday was mailed to an MP who recently authored a controversial motion on when someone becomes a human being, iPolitics has learned.

I hesitate to draw attention to it, since there are crazy people everywhere, but I feel like “the other side” makes “crazy pro-lifers” a mainstay of their talking points. Meanwhile, there are crazies on both side. Equal opportunity.

More easy spoof terrain. First time voting compared to first time sex. Not the first time we’ve seen this. Getting old, people.

Do also consider that if  Republican candidate sponsored an ad this, he’d be accused of wanting to have perverted polyamourous relationships with thousands of university-aged young women, whilst simultaneously denying them birth control. (The second crime is worse than the first, in case you were wondering.)

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nwhPuR4&feature=player_embedded]

(h/t)

Well, polls show it anyway. We’ll see what happens on election day. Interesting, however, for all the “vote as if your uterus depended on it” comments from the Democrat camp. Could it be the fear mongering isn’t working?

Less than two weeks out from Election Day, Republican Mitt Romney has erased President Barack Obama’s 16-point advantage among women, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows. And the president, in turn, has largely eliminated Romney’s edge among men.

Those churning gender dynamics leave the presidential race still a virtual dead heat, with Romney favoured by 47 per cent of likely voters and Obama by 45 per cent, a result within the poll’s margin of sampling error, the survey shows.

Yesterday I discussed the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medals with Brian Lilley. You can watch it, here.

Ukraine has an election this weekend while former prime minister Julia Tymoshenko sits in jail. She has been sentenced to seven years. Seven years! Almost as long as Linda Gibbons as spent in jail.

My thoughts on Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner getting the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medals in today’s Ottawa Citizen:

At the end of the day, it appears Canada has no trouble honouring criminals. The name of Henry Morgentaler will be known to most as the doctor who performed illegal abortions and served several months in jail in the mid-1970s. He was received into the Order of Canada in October 2008.

Perhaps it’s Canada’s dedication to equality that now leads to two abortion protesters receiving a Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medal. Perhaps it’s recognition that the decades-old injunctions are anachronistic and serve only to curtail Canadians’ freedom of speech and movement for the dubious principle of not offending someone’s sensibilities.

“A rant” from the very lovely Véronique Bergeron is not to be missed, I tell you. You know her because she used to be your favourite PWPL blogger before she up and joined the circus. Anyway, that’s what she called this piece as she sent it to me; I think it’s less rant, more impassioned advocacy for motherhood and pregnancy. Enjoy.

Ottawa-based readers of this blog – and possibly others – must be familiar with the story of Julie Bilotta, a young mother left to deliver her premature breech baby unattended in an Ottawa jail cell. Read about it from the CBC here and the National Post here.

[Read more…]

I have to say, I like this sentiment. In an age of endless complaining, whining and psycho-analysis of how hard our lives are, sometimes it’s just nice to hear someone say:

I can’t stand whining,” Clinton told Marie Claire. “I can’t stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they’re not happy with the choices they’ve made. You live in a time when there are endless choices. … Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don’t even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself. … Do something!”

Carpe diem, my friends. No time for whining.

I get a steady stream of interesting articles from friends and readers (thank you, keep ’em coming). One friend sends me a whole lot of what might fall into the “Christian hypocrisy” file. Though I don’t know his faith, I’m going to guess by what he sends me that he thinks Christians are a bunch of naive, hypocritical fools. The “Christian hypocrite” storyline goes something like this: You preach certain values and standards. Then you don’t live up to those values and standards. Bam (ergo)–you are a hypocrite.

That’s not quite how I see things. I believe that there is no such thing as the perfect Christian. I believe we can preach and learn about an absolute standard, while failing to live up to that standard. Possibly the only form of hypocrisy would be if a church-going Christian knew the rules but claimed “they don’t apply to me.” Those people are out there, but happily, I don’t meet them too often.

This it not a confessional, tell-all post so don’t get too excited, but suffice to say, I preach standards I have not lived up to at one time or another, for example, today. And yesterday. And tomorrow.

Anyway, these ruminations are the result of stumbling across this post. Christians in churches are having abortions. No one is immune to making mistakes and it would be foolish if we thought we were. Healthy churches know this. I just think it’s worth remembering because all pro-lifers, many of whom are practicing Christians, need to figure out how to be in these situations with others who have had abortions when the faith is pretty clear on “thou shalt not kill.”

It actually shouldn’t be any harder than being with other Christians stumbling through life on a great array of difficult topics. (Shouldn’t be any harder, which is to say, it is very hard. Where is the line between being encouraging and being pedantic or patronizing? How do we choose our tone? When do we speak versus not speak? How do we, in moments, conceal our shock? How do you cope with the news that someone you love has made a terrible, huge mistake? Am I brave enough to risk losing a friend to stake out truth? When I lose a friend, is it my fault? Please join me in my world of sleepless nights, people.)

PS I found the linked article sad, because it would be heartbreaking to learn you “should have been an Auntie” in that fashion.

(h/t)