ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Tanya Zaleski

Obama: Something begins at conception

by Leave a Comment

I know, I was surprised, too. Especially after this declaration.

But this past Father’s Day, he spoke at a church in Chicago.

If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers also are missing, missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.” He added, “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception … what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It’s the courage to raise one.”

Don’t worry, Obama supporters. I’m sure his innate understanding that a child stems from the moment of conception won’t interfere with his liberal policies on abortion.

All sarcasm aside for a moment, Obama may think that the epidemic of father-absenteeism is another valid reason to support abortion on demand. He may feel America would be a better place if it wasn’t hindered by elevated poverty and crime rates directly related to fatherless households. And yet, to abort babies bound to grow up without active paternal presence is to abort Barack Obama himself, as he was “raised mostly without a father.”

Abortion survivor will not support Obama

by 1 Comment

Well, no wonder. Technically, if Obama gets his way, Gianna Jessen is not a ‘person.’

She survived her own abortion 31 years ago:

Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation.

Obama would like to revoke the status of personhood for those babies who survive abortion and emerge fully from the womb. In other words, even though a baby is fully born and alive, they would not be entitled to life and liberty.

At what point would someone like Gianna Jessen be granted personhood, then? If she makes it 24 hours, or a week, is it then automatically granted? Does she have to prove that she can survive a full year? Or maybe never?

With all the recent talk of laws like Bill C-484 setting some new, ‘dangerous’ precedent regarding the status of unborn children, what are we to make of Obama’s views of personhood? What other strange, sick acts will eventually become permissible if Obama gets his way? Will we be granted the right to kill, “perhaps by suffocation,” a child diagnosed at birth with some sort of physical or mental defect? If that happens, will those with certain disabilities be stripped of their personhood altogether? Yes, let’s talk about dangerous precedents!

Perhaps, someday soon, individuals not conforming to a strict physical norm will either be killed or sterilized and banished to the Fringes. (Ever read The Chrysalids?)

IMAGE: The Median Sib

Choosing life and limb

by Leave a Comment

Woman 18 weeks pregnant discovers her “unborn baby may lose both its feet.” Obviously, women have aborted later for less severe conditions. (I’m reminded of a third trimester abortion due to a cleft-palate diagnosis.)

Operate while still in the womb and there were risks to both mother and child. Do nothing and their daughter faced a lifetime of walking aids and difficulty.

Doctors at the Monash Medical Centre decided that to save their daughter Leah’s feet, they would have to operate on her at 22 weeks in-utero, the earliest operation conducted on a foetus in Australia and possibly a world first.

It’s interesting to note that the operation was conducted by a pediatric surgeon. Definitely puts a different spin on sayings things like ‘My body, my choice,’ and ‘One body. One person. One count.’ I wonder if pro-choice feminists will be up in arms at the idea that a woman was treated by a doctor for babies.

Mrs Bowlen said. “Just hearing the doctor say she’ll have full function in that foot and basically be able to walk. Hearing that, I know I made the right decision no matter what anyone else says.”

Girls having sex

by Leave a Comment

The Conseil du statut de la femme has raised the question of choice. No kidding:

The question is to know if girls really make a clear and educated choice to experience a precocious sexuality, or if this is purely a direct impact of the media.

Are we, in Quebec, calling sexually active teens ‘girls?’ Are we raising the issue of ill-informed choice as a potential problem regarding sexuality (and therefore reproduction)?

The article goes on to say:

Among adolescents in a couple relationship, one in five girls (20%) affirms having had a sexual encounter without actually desiring it. These are “extremely worrisome statistics,” figures the CSF.

The CSF confirms that the younger a girl starts being sexually active, the more sexual partners she will have and the higher the likelihood of her contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Hmm…That sounds a bit like a dose of abstinence education to me.

There was no mention of unintended pregnancy and subsequent (ill-informed, undesired) abortion risks.

_______________________________

Rebecca adds: “… purely a direct impact of the media.” That’s a handy bit of slicing and dicing of reality, isn’t it? Are those really the only two possibilities: a) “girls” are making informed and rational choices to be sexually active or b) it’s the media’s fault? Parents, teachers, clergy, and all the other adults who are more directly connected to individual children have a responsibility to provide young people with not only facts, but also moral guidance and support. I can gripe about the media with the best of them, but there are some rather more specific culprits in the discussion of why teenage girls might be making regretable choices.

Trouvez l’erreur

by Leave a Comment

Ever do those games on the back of a cereal box when you were a kid? (I still do them now, but that’s beside the point.) Remember the one where you had to find all the errors in a given picture? Man with shoe on head, mouse in bird’s nest, spoons flowering in garden…

I felt a little like I was playing that game this morning as I read this article.

If Mr. Epp was well known for his defense of women’s rights, we could believe that he is truly concerned about violence against women.

Error #1) Just because someone holds a particular view on what women’s rights actually entail, it does not mean he is not concerned about violence against women.

His bill is supported by anti-choice groups across the country…For all these reasons, we must denounce Bill C-484.

Error #2) If by anti-choice, she is referring to pro-life, it only makes sense that a bill which is meant to protect life would be supported by these groups. This is not an actual reason to oppose any bill.

Bill C-484… opens the door to the possibility of recriminalization of abortion in Canada, and this, only 20 years after its decriminalization.

Error #3) Abortion has been legal in Canada for almost 40 years now.

In attempting to more severely punish attackers of pregnant women, he is giving the status of personhood to the fetus.

Error #4) The bill would recognize the fetus as something, but it’s far from calling the fetus a person with Charter rights. Considering the pregnant woman would still be entitled to do whatever she likes to it (drink, smoke, do drugs, have an abortion), that’s hardly what anyone could call personhood.

The murder of pregnant women does not constitute an epidemic in Canada; over the last 3 years, 5 pregnant women have been assassinated. Though these deaths are regrettable, we can not consider it a trend. The reality is that conjugal violence is a much greater problem.

Error #5) The number one cause of death among pregnant women is homicide. Pregnant women experience abuse at a rate 6 times higher than women who are not pregnant. Approximately one in five women lose a pregnancy because of abuse. Pregnant women experiencing spousal abuse are struck in the abdomen in 70% of cases. It’s a bit of a problem, I’d say.

Misinformation is the greatest enemy of this bill’s passing. What gets me most is not the risk of this bill not being approved. It’s the why. It is that a segment of women are so petrified of having access to abortion even vaguely questioned that they are willing to prevent a sensible law like this one from being enacted.

They’re against everything

by Leave a Comment

Le Collège des médecins announces in this article that it is against every law that has anything to do with fetuses or pregnancy currently on the table in Parliament. This according to Yves Robert, secretary of Le Collège des médecins:

Besides Bill C-484, the organization also denounces three other federal bills: C-338; C-537; C-543, which all run along a similar vein.

Bill C-338 would criminalize abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, other than in cases where the woman is suffering from (mental) health problems or if the fetus has been diagnosed with severe defects.

Bill C-537 has to do with the right of conscience of health care professionals. It allows then to refuse to participate in medical procedures which run contrary to their religious beliefs or their belief of the sanctity of human life.

Bill C-543 attempts to make the pregnancy of a victim of a violent attack an aggravated circumstance of the crime.

All of these are private bills. Bills C-484 and C-537 were put forth by Conservative members from out west. Bills C-338 and C-543 are the work of Ontario Liberals…

Mr. Robert would ask all members of Parliament to vote against these bills.

Apparently, he has some concerns about doctors being held liable if harm comes upon an unborn child. He must wonder how anyone practices medicine at all in those other civilized countries with all those pesky laws!

The story of the day, the week…

by Leave a Comment

Nothing like a little miracle to perk up your day and remind you of how amazing women’s reproductive systems really are:

An Australian doctor on Friday hailed as a “miracle” a baby girl who survived a full-term pregnancy outside the womb. Durga Thangarajah was delivered by caesarean section at Darwin Private Hospital on Thursday, after spending almost nine months growing inside her mother’s right ovary — stretching the organ’s tissue as thin as paper…Miller said the condition had not been detected in this case because the mother, 34-year-old Meera Thangarajah, had not had early pre-natal scans and had had a trouble-free pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood: Not so much emphasis on the parent

by Leave a Comment

Planned Parenthood tirelessly opposes every parental involvement law now in effect and works diligently to prevent new laws from passing.

In states like Pennsylvania, teens need parental consent to have a legal abortion. To get around involving their parents, teens may apply for a judicial bypass. Philadelphia lawyer, Barbara Bailey, has “shepherded more than a thousand teens through judicial bypass since the early 1990’s.” Watch the full video.

I don’t see teens who have good, healthy relationships with their parents coming for a bypass. They tell their parents.

In other words, this translates into more parents hearing about what’s going on in their teenage daughters’ lives. Where this type of parental involvement law doesn’t exist, any girl the least bit squeamish about telling her parents she is pregnant (thus admitting she is sexually active) can bypass that whole awkward conversation. That teen can march right into a Planned Parenthood clinic and have herself an abortion, go home and cry for 2 days, having now increased six fold her risk of attempting suicide. She’s also twice as likely as her peers to start abusing drugs or alcohol.

35 states have parental involvement laws. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 40 percent of teen abortions take place with no parental involvement. I’d be curious to know the stats. How many girls who have fair to excellent relationships with their parents offer up their intention to have an abortion when they are not legally required to do so? As a parent, wouldn’t you want to know?

Some argue parental involvement laws create more problems than they solve.

Really?

Whatever you do, never say you’re sorry

by 1 Comment

My favorite uncle passed away a few months ago. He once teased that he was only my favorite uncle by default, as he belonged to my favorite aunt. They had been happily married 41 years. She mourned very deeply for weeks. Although she seems much better now, we who love her do understand that her mourning period is not over. Autumn will bring with it his birthday. Then will come her first Christmas without him, not to mention next spring reminding her of the days she spent by his hospital bed before he finally died.

I think of the state my aunt is in now. She isn’t on the constant verge of tears; she laughs and jokes…I recognize her again. It would, however, be inconceivable for her to now share how easy it has been to recover from the loss of her dear husband. She knows these things take time, and come in waves. No one can safely say, after a few days or weeks, how an experience has permanently affected them.

With this understanding in my pocket, I took a trip to I’m Not Sorry.net. As I understand it, this site is the pro-choice response to Silent No More (or here in Canada). Both of these offer women’s stories of past abortions.

I can safely say that two-thirds of the testimonies I read on I’m Not Sorry were by women who had undergone an abortion within the last year; most shared their stories a day or two after the fact. Wisely, a pro-choice organization has decided to publish these stories, which don’t usually lack emotion, but do often lack any sort of full perspective of what the abortion experience is really like, long-term, for a woman.

 

Some of the women’s stories enumerated the following sentiments:

  • “I am still unsure how I feel about everything, although I know what’s done is done. I am unsettled, but I am starting to feel better.” Amelia; 2 days later

  • “It has been two weeks, and I haven’t cried in days, I have slept, and I know my baby is in Heaven, and one day when I know I can do it, and provide a better life, I will.” Ashley; 2 weeks later

  • “Checking my phone for a missed call from him [the father] hoping I could tell them [the clinic] to keep the $400.00, and make my way home with my baby… He wants me to feel bad and terrible [now] and I never will.” Ashley D.; the next day

  • “I have no idea what this will bring me in 20 years. But it has brought me relief. No regrets.” Kayla; the next day

  • “I do not regret the first abortion that I had…but I do not want to do this to myself again.” Nadia; 1 year ago

These are the portraits of women who escape ‘unscathed’ from the abortion experience. No words.

______________________________

Andrea adds: Some of the best testimonies against abortion are found when pro-choicers let women express themselves openly. “It has been two weeks, and I haven’t cried in days, I have slept, and I know my baby is in Heaven, and one day when I know I can do it, and provide a better life, I will.” This is a good reminder of what happens in an abortion. A baby dies. Now we can look and say–there are reasons for that, or these situations are complicated, or I couldn’t tell her what to do, or “who are you to say, Andrea Mrozek, that she would have been better off keeping this baby?” But I am going to stick to my guns and say this: We are always better off when we keep babies, when we let them live and when we don’t give women like Ashley–so poignantly describing her tears and how she is now sleeping again–that choice. “My baby is in Heaven”? Your baby could have been right here on earth.

Remember Emma Beck when you begin to think abortion is compassionate… her babies were in Heaven and she went on to join them prematurely.

Hypocrite, and proud of it

by Leave a Comment

In Quebec, cell phone use was recently banned while driving. The ban took effect April 1st. However, until July 1st, no legal charges will be pressed.

An offence will result in a fine of $80 to $100 plus costs and three demerit points for drivers at fault. Over the next three months, offenders will receive a warning, but starting July 1, 2008, peace officers may issue a notice of offence.

Cell phone use while driving is no more or less dangerous depending on its legality, or risk of legal consequences. So if it’s dangerous, why are only warnings being issued? Is this hypocrisy, or is there not an understanding within our society that we need to allow time for change?

Segue now to this issue.

If abortion is murder, why is NO ONE, not even pro-lifers, willing to imprison the women who have them?

… So why does she get off so easily? To really fathom their tolerance for these female killers, watch how many of them they will embrace, coddle, and hug at a pro-life rally… as long as they shows [sic] remorse.

For at least a full generation now, women have been told it is their human right to have an abortion. If a pro-abortion advocate wants to know why I might ‘coddle and hug’ a woman who is experiencing remorse over a past abortion, part of my answer is this: she is also a victim of our abortion-advocating society.

If cell phone use while driving warrants three months of leeway, how much leeway are we to offer women who have been raised and indoctrinated to believe abortion is their human right; abortion is the most valid “choice”; abortion is safe; abortion evacuates a blob of tissue; abortion is necessary; abortion goes hand in hand with the liberation of women?

Furthermore, the more we hear of attempts to silence the pro-life voice, the more it is apparent that these women are victims of a society that only wants one side of the issue exposed.

If abortion were criminalized tomorrow, I would not want to see these women imprisoned. If that makes me a hypocrite, I’m glad to be one.

Meta