Here is the speech given to the Irish parliament by the young Minister of State for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton on why she no longer supports abortion. Ireland is currently considering legislation to legalize abortion. Creighton covers a number of important points in her speech. She addresses whether she is anti-woman for being against abortion, discusses how this is a human rights issues, and explains that as an elected official, it is her duty to exercise her freedom of conscience:

I’ve had people contact me in recent months condemning me for having a “moral” or ethical concern about abortion. Some demanded that I leave my morals or conscience aside in order to support abortion. Now I must say that I find this bizarre.

There is an emerging consensus in Ireland which suggests that having a sense of morality has something to do with the Catholic Church. It is automatically assumed that if you consult your conscience, you are essentially consulting with Rome. This is deeply worrying. It is a lazy way of attempting to undermine the worth of an argument, without actually dealing with the substance. This is not just a Catholic issue, any more than it is a Protestant or Muslim issue. This is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.

I wonder what one should consult when voting on a fundamental human rights issue such as this, if not ones own conscience? My personal view is that all I can do, when making a decision on life and death, and that is what we are considering here, is consult my conscience, which is based on my sense of what is right and what is wrong. What else can I consult? The latest opinion poll? The party hierarchy? The editor of the most popular newspaper?

I mentioned groupthink, which is a corrosive affliction in this country. We saw it in the Haughey era, we saw it during the Celtic Tiger era, and we see it on this question of abortion. It is easy to understand why people in positions of responsibility want thorny issues to simply disappear. It is far easier than risking conflict, unpopularity or worse; paying the price for speaking up…

Wouldn’t the country have been much better served in the 2000s, had more people on the Government benches, in academia, or in the media been prepared to raise their heads above the parapet? I am sure that there were many conscientious objectors who realised that what was happening was wrong, yet they all remained reticent to avoid the wrath of their colleagues, the public, their bosses, the media and so on. Conscience lost out, and the country suffered greatly.

We all have the right to conscientious objection. It is enshrined in Article 18 of the United Nations, Universal Declaration on Human Rights which states :

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion….”

I contend that this freedom of conscience is not just a right, but also a duty.

Dustin Hoffman cries through the end of this interview when he discusses the expectations put on women by society and what he learned after the make-up test for Tootsie.  The interview clip is about 3 minutes long.

A quote from the interview:

She doesn’t fulfill physically the demands that we are brought up to… think that women have to have for us to ask them out.

There are too many interesting women I have…not had the experience to know in this life because I have been brainwashed.

What do you think?

It turns out that it’s porn and video games. In four minutes, Philip Zimbardo explains:

“We made sure our son was not born only to suffer. He died in a warm and loving place, inside me,” she writes. This is surely one of the most morally confused and willfully self-deceptive sentences ever published in a major American newspaper. It might be the most painful thing I have ever read. You will not be surprised to learn that Times commenters lauded Nicastro for her courage and showered her with compassion. Not one mentioned her departed son.

Yup.

We have some great regulars who continue the conversation in our comment sections, as well as people who drop in from time to time. Come join the conversation!

(The comment section debates are more interesting than a one-on-one with a fire hydrant. And for the record, Andrea has better taste in scarves. You don’t know what you’re missing.)

photo credit: ohhector via photopin cc

There are consequences to any choice. Dr. Donald DeMarco addresses a few of the consequences of abortion and an abortion culture:

Joyce Arthur, coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada complained when actress Nicole Kidman announced to the press that she was “thrilled” at being pregnant.  Ms. Arthur wants pregnant women to be less positive about their pregnancies:  “It certainly shows any young woman watching these movies or following these celebrities that the best option is to have the baby and it glorifies that choice.”  The choice to abort brings with it a prohibition of any public display of maternal joy.  One choice annuls another.  We must not glorify choices.  We want to make all choices perfectly free of any outside influence.  This would mean, incidentally, the logical end of commercial advertising. Nonetheless, this is a strange request coming from an organization that has done everything it could to influence the choice of abortion.  The choice for abortion, indeed, as Elshtain has remarked, does bring with it a considerable array of constraints and compulsions. […]

When the choice to abort is regarded as a form of “care,” the consequences can be catastrophic.  Concerning Obama’s Affordable Care Act, W. Ross Blackburn, rector of an Anglican fellowship, raises an interesting question:  “When decisions about what is and what is not covered by insurance are made by an appointed administrator with a medical sheet in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, what will happen to children whose prognosis is bleak, and treatment is expensive?” (The Human Life Review, Fall 2012)  Does it make sense to deliver a child who requires expensive medical treatment that is not covered by the Affordable Care Act?  Rev. Blackburn fears that ultimately the back-alley abortion will be replaced by the back-alley birth!  Will his words written in 2012 prove prophetic 25 years from now?

Friends: Aid to Women is a pregnancy centre next door to an abortion clinic in downtown Toronto. They are asking for help, see below. This does seem like a good opportunity to get on the street level and help more women. Spread the word.

We have an opportunity for a suitable co-tenant at our downtown Toronto location and are hoping that you can assist us in our search.

As you may know, Aid to Women is a unique kind of crisis pregnancy centre. Our office and counselling space is located next door to the ‘Cabbagetown Women’s Clinic’ abortuary. Our primary focus is on counselling the women who are entering the abortuary, or who mistakenly walk up to our office thinking it is the abortuary.

…Ideally we’d be located at the street level next to the abortuary, but that space has never been available to us. This spring, however, the store that occupied the street level space closed its doors and we have the opportunity we’ve wished for nearly 20 years.

Renting the street level commercial space presents us with a unique opportunity to dramatically increase our effectiveness. We know that asking women to enter our offices on the second floor discourages many women from accepting our offer of counselling.  … Our visibility and our outreach would become so much more impactful.

The landlord has offered the main floor space to us, but the cost of the monthly rent, (as well as the property tax and utilities payments) is very challenging for us.  We are currently in a long-term lease for the second floor, so would need to cover the carrying costs for the whole building. We are trying to negotiate a more reasonable rental fee, because we feel that this opportunity may not come along again for some time, if we let it go.

So, for all the above reasons, we would like to reach out to our non-profit, pro-life friends to ask whether you would know an organization, or be interested in sharing our space in the house. If we move our office and counselling space to the main floor, the office space upstairs (recently extensively renovated) will be available for sublet to someone else. We are hoping to share the space with the new tenant because we will require access to the kitchen and the storage area on the third floor. Over time, this access would likely diminish as we would progress to renovate the space downstairs to accommodate our needs.

We are reaching out to you for assistance in finding a suitable co-tenant. If you think your organization may be interested, or you know of an organization that is looking for reasonably priced office space downtown Toronto , please drop us a line and let us know at [email protected].

Thank you kindly,

Elena Repka, on behalf of the Aid to Women Board of Directors

President

Yesterday Andrea wrote about the pro-choice mob chanting “Hail Satan” outside the Texas legislature. I read a few articles this morning on the story, and caught some other, unbelievable pro-choice messaging. A sample:

Exhibit A: A parent or guardian permitted their child to carry the following sign:”If I wanted the government in my womb, I would **** a senator.”

Exhibit B: A teen carries a sign that reads “Hoes before embryos.”

Exhibit C: Pro-choice activists spat on pro-lifers and threw cigarette butts at them.

As a member of the pro-life movement, I frequently engage in messaging meetings with other interested pro-life parties. I know that a movement cannot require that all members abide by certain communications standards. I also acknowledge the rights to freedom of speech and expression, even though I (we) sometimes wish certain individuals didn’t attempt to advance the pro-life cause with questionable or nonsensical placards or banners. And of course, as in any movement, there is a small minority of extremists who definitely do not represent the whole.

But bizarre, distasteful  and lewd communications seems to be a general mainstay of at least a significant portion of the pro-choice movement, like the signs or chants used above. As is the assault of persons by spitting on them and throwing objects at them. At this rally, it was cigarette butts. At last year’s March for Life in Ottawa, pro-choice activists were whipping condoms at pro-lifers.

Over the years of attending pro-life rallies, I’ve seen pro-choice demonstrators appear topless. I remain unsure as to what message that advances. I’ve witnessed lewd gestures, posters and chants. Again, I remain at a loss as to how those means assist the pro-choice movement in advancing their position.

I’m not one of those few pro-lifers who thinks pro-choicers are idiotic or thoughtless. I have friends and associates who have thought through their position and still support unlimited abortion access. I think they’re wrong, but I acknowledge that they’ve thoughtfully reflected on the issue. And there are arguments for the pro-choice position that I don’t agree with, but that are sophisticated, like Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument. There are reasons why there are a number of philosophical and apologetic pro-life books and essays. One of them is that pro-lifers have taken the other side’s arguments, thought them through and responded to them. There are some very brainy people who make up a portion of the pro-choice movement, including its leadership.

I don’t understand how a movement that does include some good thinkers can produce such consistently ill-advised messaging. I also don’t understand how a movement that claims to advance its cause in the name of rights, respect and the protection of women from violence can assault women with cigarettes butts and saliva, and refer to women as “hoes.” Which philosophy under-girds a movement that consistently exhibits these behaviours at events across the continent? It seems to be a philosophy that fails to assign respect equally to all members of society, including women who don’t agree with their position.

If pro-choice leaders don’t believe that assault and lewd slogans should define their movement, why aren’t they condemning these actions? At the very least, condemning the spitting and throwing of objects at people? And keep in mind that in Canada, spitting on someone can be considered an assault under criminal law. The law appears to be similar in the US. These are matters not to be taken lightly.

h/t LifeSiteNews

I liked both Barbara Kay’s article and Tasha Kheiriddin’s on why women know less about the news.

Both are reasonable responses to a study I posted about yesterday.

What is unreasonable as an explanation is the assertion that there is a “historic hangover,” whereby women believe news and politics to be a man’s domain. But there, Tasha is right too-the study author probably wants another grant somewhere down the line and academia is extraordinarily unforgiving of those who use common sense when it comes to gender difference.

My Twitter feed is abuzz with pro-lifers commenting on the situation in Texas.

Here’s the update: The Governor called a special session to do what an angry mob and a lengthy filibuster prevented last week, that is pass legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks and raising the standards in abortion clinics.

This resulted in the pro-abortion mob chanting “Hail Satan” outside the legislature, while pro-lifers sang Amazing Grace. You can watch that sad spectacle, here.