…keeping on. Despite the madness his motion elicited, and the controversy on the Hill, he continues to raise awareness of sex-selective abortions in Canada. His statement in the House of Commons yesterday, when introduced a petition on the matter:

 Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have from beautiful Langley is with regard to gendercide. The petitioners highlight that 92% of Canadians believe that sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal, and that there are over 200 million missing girls in the world right now. They ask for Parliament to condemn this worst form of discrimination against girls.

People should never forget that we allow gendercide to take place in our country. Oh, Parliament.

photo credit: Dominique Pelletier via photopin cc

Interesting research.

In another study of baby names (see, love is indeed in the air), political scientists at the University of Chicago look at baby names from another perspective. In this conference paper, they argue that political ideology affects the names parents choose for their little bundles of joy.

They suggest that names serve as social signals that can indicate either cultural or economic “wealth,” in which liberals are more interested in signaling cultural wealth while conservatives prefer to signal economic wealth. In particular, they indicate that liberal parents are more likely to choose uncommon, culturally obscure names (e.g., “Namaste,” “Finnegan,” and “Archimedes”), possibly a reflection of liberals’ tendencies toward openness, while conservative parents are more likely to choose culturally traditional names (e.g., “John,” “Thomas,” and “Catherine”), possibly reflecting their tendencies toward conscientiousness. […]

photo credit: Sergiu Bacioiu via photopin cc

And extremists! Shocking.

This from the Executive Director of an organization that refuses to condemn sex-selective abortions and opposes measures which would criminalize the coercion of women. Le sigh.

Thankfully, our friends over at WeNeedaLaw responded to her op-ed:

She takes on the mainstream media for their coverage of the death of Dr. Henry Morgentaler as being too “balanced.” In her opinion it gives way to much credibility to today’s young, energetic and smart pro-life movement.

Interspersed in her rant Arthur says things like, “Apparently, the media thinks that [anti-choice] view has some kind of legitimacy and must be presented against the pro-choice view in the name of ‘balance’,” and, “The mainstream media continues to give space to these fanatics.” Later on in her lament she outs Jonathan Kay of the National Post by referring to one of his articles as “repellant libel” filled with “hateful comments.” […]

The fact is, Canadians’ knowledge of life prior to birth has greatly improved since the 70’s and 80’s when Morgentaler and the “Furious Feminists” were busy fooling us that a pre-born child was nothing more than a clump of cells. Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Due to advances in science and medicine, less and less Canadians are being fooled by the empty pro-choice rhetoric that once held the day. For that reason it is entirely justifiable for the mainstream media to cover the rapidly expanding movement in Canada which is demanding changes in our laws regarding pre-born human rights.

photo credit: gareth1953 Disappointed Bee – Again via photopin cc

I write about some of Canada’s most controversial legal issues. This year, I’ve started to read through style guides to ensure that I’m using correct language, and respectful language. Given that these style guides are so easily available, I was surprised to learn about this practice:

The media also tends to use the term “Down syndrome babies” rather than “babies with Down syndrome.” For an industry that aims at political correctness, it is striking that journalists often ignore the preferred language people with Down syndrome have offered to describe themselves and instead perpetuate the idea that having a 47th chromosome is the person’s most descriptive attribute. Again, a smattering of examples: “She just didn’t look like a typical Down syndrome baby” (New York Times); “One mom’s struggle, joy with Down syndrome baby” (Today Show); “And yes, she really did walk the walk when she found out she was carrying a Down-syndrome baby” (Ann Coulter describing Sarah Palin in TIME). I could go on.

Members of the media speak in broad terms about any number of groups, but again, reporters attempt to use the language that groups have designated as appropriate for their outlet. The Style Guide for the New York Times explains, “This [style manual] counsels respect for group sensibilities and preferences that have made themselves heard in the last two or three decades – concerns, for example, of women, minorities and those with disabilities. The manual favors constructions that keep words neutral…” But even when trying to tell a positive story, many who write and report about people with Down syndrome (for the New York Times and elsewhere) do so through a negative lens that equates Down syndrome with suffering.

Whether with benign or malicious intentions, many people discriminate by looking at people with Down syndrome categorically, before recognizing them as individuals. They assume that all people with Down syndrome look alike, or all people with Down syndrome are sweet, stubborn, angels, or drains on society. I suspect that these biases arise due to the physical characteristics that visually connect individuals with Down syndrome combined with ignorance about the potential for meaningful lives among individuals with intellectual disabilities.

According to psychologists, our twenties are not throwaway years. Shocking. But a message to be shared as for some, adolescent attitudes and habits creep into their mid to late twenties, in effect stalling personal and professional growth.

Clinical psychologist Meg Jay has a bold message for twentysomethings: Contrary to popular belief, your 20s are not a throwaway decade. In this provocative talk, Jay says that just because marriage, work and kids are happening later in life, doesn’t mean you can’t start planning now. She gives 3 pieces of advice for how twentysomethings can re-claim adulthood in the defining decade of their lives.

In her book “The Defining Decade,” Meg Jay suggests that many twentysomethings feel trivialized during what is actually the most transformative — and defining — period of our adult lives.

What resonated with me most were her comments on how one conversation or one opportunity seized in your twenties could change the course of your life. That was the case with me. It was because of a conversation with a virtual stranger that I decided to print up the brick of forms that are law school application packages and fill them out.

At the end, she wraps up with,

“Twenty is not the new thirty so claim your adulthood.”

Found this case summary in a legal database…

Applicant was a citizen of China. She had been required to enforce the one-child policy in the family planning clinic in which she worked. She was required to perform abortions. Her request to be excused from this work was refused, and she was threatened with imprisonment. After releasing a woman who had escaped and been apprehended, she was arrested, detained for 3 months, interrogated, and demoted. She escaped before disciplinary proceedings were taken. The Convention Refugee Determination Division found that applicant had a well-founded fear…

The decision doesn’t appear to be posted online. Here’s the case citation if you want to dig it up: Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v. Lin, 1995 CarswellNat 1224.

I don’t know how it did not occur to me that there would medical professionals who are victims of this policy as well. I clearly need to spend more time researching this issue.

photo credit: Avard Woolaver via photopin cc

Don’t call this mama a saint because doing so devalues the life of her daughter. I think hers is a voice that needs to be heard:

My husband and I adopted a daughter from overseas who has special needs. She is significantly visually impaired, has epilepsy and is significantly delayed.

I want you to know that I am not a saint for wanting this child and it really burns my butt when you make me sound like one. When people tell me what an angel I am for adopting my daughter, it makes her sound like a huge burden. Otherwise, why would it be so noteworthy for me to love her? She’s not a burden. She’s a blessing. Every day, no matter what happens.

photo credit: Thomas Hawk via photopin cc

A hoax, but I thought it would delight Andrea, given her love of mermaids.

_________________

Andrea adds: Those guys are about as good at acting as I would be. Ie. Not terribly good. But funny. And you never do see who the mermaid is… perhaps my order from Florida dude selling tails had just arrived? No one will ever know for sure.

Read more here.

How can we be more loving in sharing the pro-life message? An interesting application of 1 Cor 13 by Tim Brahm:

While I was reflecting on this problem a few months ago, it reminded me of 1 Corinthians 13.  I wrote my struggles into the text, not to elevate my thoughts to the level of Scripture, but to remind myself of the power of a passage quoted so often that I hear the words without thinking about what they mean.  Below, I’ve placed the original text in bold type with my added thoughts in normal type.

If I speak with the conviction of a great apologist, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

And if I have great powers of perception, and understand all science and philosophy, and if I have all faith, so as to inspire a congregation, but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give away all excess income to pregnancy care centers and take in unwed mothers, and if I deliver up my reputation for the cause of saving unborn babies, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; it listens and seeks to understand rather than merely waiting for the chance to respond.

Love is kind; it treats everyone as a valuable human being made in the image of God – not just embryos, fetuses, and those who agree with us.

Read the rest here.