I copied the blog post’s title right off the National Post website. I couldn’t have made it up.

Here are some good letters to the editor regarding the story of MP Stephen Woodworth being drowned out by the Vagina Warriors.

Not only did the Vagina Warriors, including Mr. Ethan Jackson, a 21 year old art student who calls his vagina costume Vulveta, demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the concept of free expression, but they made poor Mrs. Betty Hansford (her letter below) thankful that she’s “going out of this word and not coming in.” That’s quite a feat, indeed, oh Vagina Warriors.

The recent absurdities put on display by pro-choice demonstrators at the University of Waterloo go beyond pathetic. I respect the fact there are a divergence of views on this topic, but seriously, dressing up in vagina costumes and impeding someone’s freedom of speech isn’t going to get you anywhere. As an advocate for pre-born human rights I actually quite enjoy the attention these “vagina warriors” are receiving, as I assume there aren’t too many Canadians who would identify with their blatant objectification of women.

One of the reasons fetal rights has become a more acceptable topic on the public agenda in recent months is due to a growing understanding among Canadians that the tired rhetoric is simply that – rhetoric. As the discussion continues to become focused on the real issue, namely, “what are the pre-born?” we are witnessing a transformation whereby there is a strengthening sense of urgency to deal with what is clearly an egregious human rights violation against vulnerable members of the human family.

As hard as they try, the “vagina warriors” no longer define the terms of the debate. For that Canadians can be thankful.

     Mike Schouten, campaign director, WeNeedaLAW.ca, Surrey, B.C.

Thank you for the entertaining article by Joseph Brean on the disruption of MP Stephen Woodworth’s talk at the University of Waterloo. Such assaults on free speech are all too common on our campuses and are normally to be deplored; in this case however, I think the situation was redeemed, in a comic sense, by the fervent declamation of the “woman in red” regarding “the anatomical jewel.” You really couldn’t make stuff like that up. I wonder what courses she has been taking, and if her professors are pleased with their efforts.

     Bruce Walton, Ottawa.

Never have I read anything so disgusting. The so-called students who had the effrontery to display such an intimate female part and use language that shocked me should be kicked out of the university. I read this article on my birthday. All I can say for it is I am glad I am going out of this world and not coming in.

     Betty Hansford, Oakville, Ont.

It seems that Canadians aren’t the only ones uniformed about their country’s abortion legislation:

One in two people in the city’s western suburbs don’t know that abortions are legal but 65% know that it’s illegal to find out the gender of the unborn child, a new survey says. […] “The government is rightly publicizing the PCPNDT Act that prohibits sex-determination tests and sex-selective abortions, but it has not been highlighting the women’s right to abortion. There is confusion among people over the legality of abortions,” said Laxmi Menon, a coordinator with Women Net- working.

And in Canada? A January 2013 poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion asked “Speaking about abortion in Canada, which of the following do you think is true?”

• 23% said, “A woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, with no restrictions whatsoever.”
• 7% said, “A woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, but only if her life is in danger, if she has been the victim of rape, or if the fetus has serious defects.”
• 45% said, “A woman can have an abortion only during the first three months of her pregnancy, with no other restrictions.”
• 13% said, “A woman can only have an abortion during the first three months of her pregnancy, and only if her life is in danger, if she has been the victim of rape, or if the fetus has serious defects.”
• 12% said, “Not sure.”

Only 23% of Canadians got it right. Perhaps our government should be informing the public about the abortion status quo? Maybe Canadians wouldn’t be comfortable with it once they were informed?

And perhaps our government should be condemning sex-selection abortion? Because it’s.a.bad.thing. Hmmmmm….

Google announced last week that it will be retiring Google Reader. If you currently follow blogs with Google Reader and you’re looking for a good alternative, take a look at Feedly. The transition is seamless, you don’t have to export or import your data, and you have several ways to customize the look and feel. I’ve been using it for a few days now and I love it.

Here are Feedly’s instructions on transitioning and customizing.

This is incredibly disappointing:

An event with MP Stephen Woodworth at the University of Waterloo yesterday was derailed as protestors shouted down the speaker, preventing Mr. Woodworth from continuing his presentation to the students assembled. […]

Mr. Woodworth, MP for the Kitchener Centre riding, had brought forward Motion 312 at the House of Commons last year, which called for a re-examination of the 400 year-old definition of a human being in the Canadian Criminal Code. His presentation on Wednesday was to address that topic as well as to take questions from the audience. Mr. Woodworth was only able to get through one third of the presentation before the chanting and yelling prevented him from being heard.

Although campus security was present, they failed to take any kind of action to allow Mr. Woodworth to continue his presentation. When asked to intervene they declined to do so, stating that unless the protesters became violent, they could not step in.

“This is an elected member of our government speaking at an institution that is supposed to have a high value for free speech,” states Clarissa Luluquisin who was in attendance and is the Central Campus Coordinator of the National Campus Life Network, which supports pro-life groups across Canada. “Instead of respectfully listening and then asking questions, we see that the protestors preferred to cling to a few pieces of rhetoric rather than listening to anything Mr. Woodworth might say.”

You can watch a video of the protest here. Yup, they wore the vagina costumes.

______________________

Andrea adds: Talk about unhinged students. Is that a man wearing a uterus? I can’t quite see. Am I allowed to ask, or is that too old-fashioned these days? Who is allowed to call women “c*nts” (sorry for the crassness, but that’s what I heard in the opening line of the video) and pretend it is pro-woman? Pro-choicers, that’s who!  Don’t give these students a free pass. This is reprehensible, immature, anti-democratic behaviour masquerading as protest. In genitalia costumes, no less. Really, people. I shake my head. And since there are police officers there, I’d like to ask why they are doing absolutely nothing.  Seems to me a bit of a “guiding gently” out the door would have been a really helpful thing.

Someone recommended Wild by Cheryl Strayed to me. It’s the true story of a woman who decides to spend 100 days hiking the Pacific Crest Trail.  (I don’t think this post is deserving of a spoiler alert because the following is treated as barely a footnote in her life story.)

Early in the account, she realizes she’s pregnant. She describes her reaction:

That I would get an abortion was a fact so apparent it seemed silly to discuss anything else. […]

I drove without listening to the radio, thinking about my pregnancy. It was the size of a grain of rice and yet I could feel it in the deepest, strongest part of me, taking me down, shaking me up, reverberating out. Somewhere in the southwestern farmlands of Minnesota, I burst into tears, crying so hard I could barely steer, and not only for the pregnancy I didn’t want. I was crying over all of it, over the sick mire I’d make of my life…

For a few paragraphs, she discusses other matters. I hoped that she would reconsider the knee-jerk reaction to her pregnancy and that someone would share with her that there are other options. That someone would tell her that this life inside of her, that is touching her so deeply, does not have be extinguished. That abortion is not the only and obvious response to an unplanned pregnancy.

However, this seemed unlikely because I knew the 100 day solo hike was coming up and it was doubtful that she was going to do it pregnant.

But it was with a mix of disbelief and nausea that I read the sentence where she explains her hike preparations:

I got an abortion and learned how to make dehydrated tuna flakes and turkey jerky and took a refresher course on basic first aid and practiced using my water purifier in my kitchen sink.

I put my e-reader down, found my husband and told him that the terms “abortion” and “turkey jerky” should never, ever be used in the same sentence.

It just shocked me. First she describes this intimate connection she feels with the life within her and then she casually mentions ending the life, while describing dehydrated meat and water purifiers.

Is abortion really the best we have to offer women? In this case, despite feeling a powerful connection to the life deep within her, Strayed believed abortion was her only real option and then treated her abortion shockingly casually. (Or at least describes it that way.)

How can we more clearly (loudly?) communicate to women that there are other, better options for them and their children?

I just received an email from the Back to Life movement. It included a link to a video of a woman, Ashely, sharing her abortion story. It’s a powerful video – Ashley is honest, raw and real.

You can take a child from the womb, but you can’t take the memory of the child from the mother.

For more information on the Back to Life walk, click here.

Who is responsible should something go wrong, he wonders? “What’s the strategy for handling a stillborn baby, (or) a damaged baby?” Is it worth the risks when other options — surrogacy or adoption — exist? “Is it worth taking the risk just to permit the person to deliver the baby? How important is this?”

Beyond the “huge challenge” of the potential risks of immune suppressing drugs on the mother and any developing fetus — studies in women who have had kidney transplants have linked the drugs with a higher risk of miscarriage, prematurity and uterine growth restriction, though not with an increased rate of birth defects — is the issue of cost, Caplan said. “Given other health care priorities, where does this fit in?”

Experiments in rats, mice, sheep and goats have been promising, but “we have not done the correct experiments in animals, we’ve not done the correct experiments in non-human primates,” says Canadian reproductive biology expert Dr. Roger Pierson. “We’re taking a full-on run at this in humans without really understanding what it is we’re doing.” […]

If the procedure evolves into something that can be widely offered, there’s a risk some women might feel coerced into giving up their uterus, observers say. “One sister might feel, ‘I’ve got to donate my uterus to the other, she needs a child, what choice do I have,’ ” said Caplan.

Read the story here.

This morning, wearing my EFC hat, I asked Members of Parliament to condemn sex-selection abortions:

Dear Member of Parliament,

Today is International Women’s Day. Today is a global day to celebrate the “economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future.” It is a day that “honours the work of the suffragettes, celebrates women’s success, and reminds of inequities still to be redressed.”

Inequity continues to exist in Canada. Before girls and women even have an opportunity to go to school, to vote, to choose if and where they will study and work, if and with whom they will fall in love and spend their lives with, they are being aborted simply because of their gender.

You can read the rest here. Learn more about Motion M-408 at DefendGirls.ca.

When I was eighteen, I spent the summer in New Zealand. I spent about a month doing adventuresome stuff like climbing Mount Ruapehu, a then-dormant volcano; bunking in cabins that had previously housed Lord of the Rings crew and hobbits; and Blair Witch-ing it alone in the woods for 24 hours with nothing more than tarp, string, a blanket and some granola. I spent the last month working as a teacher’s aid in a small, private Catholic school. I still have fond memories of the students and the staff.

But I do not have fond memories of bungee jumping. I took a few days off during my teacher’s aid stint and headed off to Taupo with some friends. I was the last one to jump, for reasons I do not remember.  I watched them all dive off the platform. Bravely. I remember one friend jumping off the platform as soon as her boots were strapped on. Her arms were spread wide as she flew through the air, à la Superman.

Then I walked to the ledge and looked down. Horrifying. Nauseating. Surreal.

And, of course, the bungee centre had a no-refunds policy. Convenient. The cranky staff woman somehow got me to step off the ledge. I cried all the way down…and up…and down…and up…and down.

Once pulled out of the boots, I ran into my friend’s arms and cried even more. It was a horrible, horrible experience. Why in the world did I think it was a good idea to pay cash to jump off a ledge, attached to a giant elastic band?

So it was with horror that I watched this guy push his girlfriend off the edge of cliff. (She apparently forgives him for it.)

I tripped over a journal article while going through a legal database and came across this:

In another experiment testing the correlation between a tendency to feel disgust and moral judgments, the researchers noted that disgust sensitivity tends to predict more conservative responses to moral issues, particularly “purity” issues like homosexuality and abortion. Thus, a person who feels disgust at the thought of drinking from a stranger’s glass is more likely to view homosexuality or abortion as morally wrongful.

If you want to read the original study, you can find it here. I haven’t had the chance. I did come across this summary article in Psychology Today:

Disgust is a marked feeling of revulsion or profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant, distasteful, or offensive. The things that consistently arouse disgust are also things that make us sick, such as excrement and corpses, which are sources of life-threatening bacteria and viruses. So it is believed that the disgust response helps us avoid contaminated items that could give us a disease and, in evolutionary terms, reduce our chances of survival and reproduction. Because of its role in survival as well as the particularly old region of the brain (anterior insula) that is most active when people experience disgust, it is often described as one of the original emotions and thought of as a building block for other emotions.

So what’s the political connection? Evidence suggests that harm avoidance and the need for fairness underlie people’s moral judgments in a number of cultures. While liberals rely primarily on these two values, conservatives also rely on desires for group loyalty, authoritative structure, and, most importantly here, purity. Following this logic, Kevin and other researchers became interested in the potential for a relation between disgust and political orientations. They speculated that conservatives are more disgust sensitive than liberals as a result of their concern with purity-related norms and that this difference would manifest itself on issues that some may associate with sexual purity (e.g., homosexual sex and, therefore, gay rights). […]

I believe Kevin and I share an important and vastly underappreciated perspective on political behavior: some political attitudes are biologically influenced. People do not fully control their responses to disgust, just like they do not fully control their responses to evolutionary predispositions … A broader understanding of this may take some of the nastiness out of our current political rhetoric as people comprehend how their political opponents can sometimes come to what seem like incomprehensible positions.

Again, I don’t have time to look into the study’s methodology, but at face value, what do you think of their findings? Is being pro-life simply a nature versus nurture outcome? (I don’t.)

I’ve been pro-life since I was about 19 years old. Did my “nature” suddenly change 11 years ago?