Two items catch my eye this morning.

One was this article about how women don’t like the news, says a study. “Consumption of news is ‘very much a masculine action, particularly in Canada, Norway, U.K and U.S.'” I found this as I was catching up with the news, thereby proving once again that I am unique among all of female kind. Ha!

The study authors then go to great lengths to try and figure why this might be:

He suggested three partial explanations. One is a “historical hangover” from an age when public affairs was men’s work, and women stayed home. Another is that women can be more busy than men, with less time for news. A third is that the men seem to be more prominent in current affairs, which can discourage some women from taking an interest or feeling involved.

Excuse me as I recover from laughing. “A historical hangover”? Seriously? NO ONE, no one, for one split second said to themselves, Hey! Maybe it’s because women are not interested!?

Next article was this one on how men only mature by age 43.

Given some fairly recent experiences I could easily quip that this one is perfectly true. But I won’t, because I’m, er, more mature than that. Ahem.

In any event, all jokes aside, in this article you don’t find any discussion of “matriarchal domination,” or the array of excuses we are prepared to provide women.

In short, men are immature, simply because they are. But if women don’t care enough to read the news it’s because a) there is systemic prejudice against us, or b) because we are so, so, so busy (and mature?) that we don’t have time.

I see a double standard. And I am weary of the long list of excuses we are prepared to provide women while not extending the same grace to men.

This is the story of little Walter Joshua Fretz, who was born at 19 weeks and only lived a few minutes. His parents, photographers, took pictures of this little beauty being held by his family during the few minutes he lived. In the words of his mother,

He was born at 9:42 PM and he was handed up to me as soon as his cord was clamped. I was crying so hard at this point but he was perfect. He was fully formed and everything was there, I could see his heart beating in his tiny chest. Joshua and I both held him and cried over him and looked over our perfect, tiny son.[,,,]

I am so very glad that Joshua went to our vehicle and got my camera. At first I did not want any photos, but they are the only thing I have to look back on now. I’m still in shock at how much his photos have been shared and commented on. In his short life of just a few minutes he has touched more lives then I ever could have imagined. I have gotten messages from people all around the country who have experienced a loss or were just touched by his story. I’ve even had a few people tell me that they were able to use his photos to reach out to a hurting woman who was contemplating an abortion. Just because the child within can not be seen by us does not mean that it is a blob of cells. Walter was perfectly formed and very active in the womb. If he had just a few short more weeks he would have had a fighting chance at life. I don’t understand why the Lord took him home, but I have to trust in his perfect timing. I may never know why, but it is a comfort to know where he is and that I will see him again. For now, he’s with his heavenly father who loves him unmeasurably more then I, as his earthly mother ever could.

The pictures are stunning and beautiful. I start to sob each time I remember the pictures of Walter, his eyes closed, resting in his mother’s arms.

I had a delightful mini-vacay, involving some camping and time with the nieces. Things I have been given ample opportunity to ponder include the following: The old adage that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is not always true. If you are in holiday mode today yourself, that’s your discussion point du jour. Talk amongst yourselves, hopefully not in a cloud of fireless smoke as a light drizzle descends while you attempt to make morning coffee.

If not in holiday mode, please return to the situation in Texas, which I did, thanks to some links sent by a friend.

What had I heard about “the Texas situation”? What is the “Texas situation” and who is Wendy Davis?

Here’s what you might think: Ultra-conservatives were attempting to put in a very restrictive abortion law and this would close down most clinics in Texas. One woman, Wendy Davis, was lionized for a lengthy filibuster, including a “loud demonstration” (read angry mob).

I, of course, knew she was not my kind of “hero.”And as it turns out she is no one’s hero.

For the Texas law aimed to stop abortions happening after 20 weeks.

From this fine assessment of the situation:

We might recap: By the time that a baby has been in utero for one month, blood is pumping around the body. In the second month, facial features develop, including the growth of ears, eyes, arms, legs, toes, and fingers. At six weeks, the baby’s brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system are all pretty well formed — in outline at least. By the two-month mark, sensory organs begin to develop and bone replaces cartilage. Three months in, arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed, and the baby can grab with its fists as well as open and close its mouth. Teeth are on their way, as are reproductive organs. In month four, the baby is fully formed, and eyelids, eyebrows, eyelashes, nails, and hair develop. At this point, a baby can suck his thumb, yawn, hiccup, stretch, and make faces. At 18 weeks, the baby can move around, and experience REM sleep, including dreams. At 20 weeks, some studies show, it can recognize its mother’s voice.

At each of these stages, had the bill been passed, it would have remained legal in Texas to kill the child. The law that Wendy Davis and her fellow “pro-science” acolytes so bravely stood against would have rendered it illegal to kill the child after this point. And when I say kill, I mean kill. I mean break bones, rip apart limbs, crush skulls, drain fluids, still a beating heart, annihilate a brain that is capable of dreaming, and crush a nervous system. I mean: Kill. As David Freddoso put it yesterday, “Wendy Davis can now say, When the moment came to stand up for smashing the life out of a baby 6 mos into pregnancy, I was up to the task.” This is not an accomplishment of which she should be proud.

As for closing clinics, this it turns out was because the clinics would be forced to comply with safety regulations:

According to ThinkProgress, the bill would also have forced “all but five of the state’s abortion clinics to close their doors.” This statement, and variants of it, occurred repeatedly during the evening — and always without context. In truth, clinics would close only if they failed to meet new safety standards that have been drawn in response to the horror stories in Philadelphia and Houston.

Therefore, the modern “women’s rights advocate” stands for something so gruesome they won’t name it and in favour of lower health and medical standards at clinics.

Wendy Davis is not a hero to anyone when you examine the matter closely.

Andrea and I are off until next Tuesday or Wednesday.  Have a lovely weekend!

Photo credit.

These hip young people park a gorgeous van in front of abortion clinics and offer free ultrasounds to pregnant women. The results?

EMC had a bus equipped with a sonogram machine. By approaching women outside the clinic with the offer of free help, with no mention of a pro-life ideology, they were able to see a staggering success rate. In fact, by their estimate, about 70% of women who got on the bus for a sonogram decided not to abort. In one day, they saw nine women decide on life for their children.

They did some simple math, and realized that if this success continued, 15 to 25 women a week, or about 800 a year, would choose life.

And they offer a full range of options and choices to women who choose to keep their children:

So now this woman, who was going to go into an abortion clinic, is able to have a pregnancy test and a sonogram without ever reaching its doors.

But what happens now? She’s heard, “Yes, you’re pregnant! You’re this far along! There’s your baby! Here’s his heartbeat!”

So what does she hear next? “Good luck with that?”

Nope. Save the Storks is directly connected to Get Involved for Life and the two pregnancy centers it operates in Dallas, one uptown and one downtown. Also, needless to say, any expectant mother will be welcomed by whatever pregnancy center is closest to the bus at the time. The Stork team is prepared to call a cab for the mother if she needs a ride.

In other words, unlike the abortion clinic, the Storks and the pregnancy centers are in it for the long haul. They are going to get her what she needs to take care of herself and her baby, body and soul.

In sum,

What is the battle cry of the pro-abortion movement? “Choice!” It is their mantra. What do you constantly hear from abortion advocates? “These desperate women feel like they are out of options.”

Right here, on four wheels, parked in front of the clinic, is another choice — one they might not even know they have. Inside that bus is an image of their baby waiting to be seen. Connected to that bus is a support system — in short, options.

Dave and the team have high hopes, and they should. The approach is breathtakingly simple and, if early tests are any indication, profoundly effective.

This is a ministry I could get behind. It’s kind, loving, pro-woman, pro-life, and truly effective.

For more information on Save the Storks, you can visit their website here.

An excellent Globe article by Margaret Wente:

Why are feminists and other progressive types so enthusiastic about legalizing prostitution? It baffles me. Prostitution is the most exploitative, degrading work on Earth. Despite those stories about high-class call girls, its practitioners are overwhelmingly the most wretched girls and women in society. Prostitution turns women into lumps of meat that are bought and sold for the sexual gratification of men. If you legalize it, you will probably get more. Please explain how that can be a good thing. […]

I admire Ms. Bedford. She is a sharp entrepreneur and a brilliant publicist. But she is no more typical of the sex trade than your Great-Aunt Dorothy.[…]

In Canada, some women’s groups do not support the case for legalization. Among them are the front-line sexual assault centres and the Native Women’s Association of Canada – groups that work with the worst-off, most damaged, most exploited girls and women of them all. They have no photogenic poster girls like Terri-Jean Bedford. They have no illusions that legalization means empowerment. They know it only means more degradation. Is that what we want? I think not.

The red light district in Amsterdam…

photo credit: Stuck in Customs via photopin cc

____________________

Andrea adds: It’s a great piece. I’d quibble with parts (I do not admire Ms. Bedford. She is greedy, self-absorbed and eager to capitalize on the suffering of others because it makes her rich) but in general, a great piece. If only common sense were more common.

More to mull:

Matthew Wojciechowski, a pro-life activist at Campaign Life Coalition who attended the 57^th Session of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women in March, said one of the abortion lobby’s main tactics recently has been to push for a ‘right to abortion’ under the guise of protecting women from violence.

When he was there in March, “abortion advocates claimed that abortion access was the solution to ending violence against women,” he explained. “They aggressively pushed forward their pro-abortion tactics proclaiming that restricting access to abortion was in itself a form of violence and that ‘sexual and reproductive health service’s’ including ‘emergency contraception’ and legal abortion were a ‘human right’.”

“Focusing on the root causes and offering genuine health care and support to victims comes secondary to these pro-abortion organizations,” Wojciechowski added. “Their main goal is to establish a ‘right to abortion’ and they have resorted to doing so under the guise of ending violence against women.  They would have us believe that abortion will eradicate rape and sexual abuse, but in reality access to abortion does nothing to prevent and/or solve the underlying problems of this devastating form of violence.”

I am musing to myself this morning (God help us all) about whether there is enough content there to write a book–very least an Atlantic Monthly length article–on the nature of choice and control. What choice does and doesn’t mean. Not with regards to abortion and being “pro-choice,” just in life in general, as the example of “I want to be a foreign diplomat” versus “I am a domestic public policy analyst.”

Hmmmm. Let me know in the comments whether you think such a book would be interesting, whether it’s been done, etc. etc. Any thoughts at all most welcome.

This report highlights that fertility woes for older women are not as pronounced as we are led to believe:

Surprisingly few well-designed studies of female age and natural fertility include women born in the 20th century—but those that do tend to paint a more optimistic picture. One study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2004 and headed by David Dunson (now of Duke University), examined the chances of pregnancy among 770 European women. It found that with sex at least twice a week, 82 percent of 35-to-39-year-old women conceive within a year, compared with 86 percent of 27-to-34-year-olds. (The fertility of women in their late 20s and early 30s was almost identical—news in and of itself.)

Good news, and I agree, under-reported.

Ultimately, though, is this article the other side of the coin for the fear mongering about the rapid decline of female fertility after age 27?

I think I’m trying to live with a different worldview. It is one that relinquishes control over that which we cannot control. For example, I studied German, German history, geo-politics and international affairs with an eye to becoming a diplomat or working in foreign affairs. I thought I might do a PhD examining totalitarianism in Europe. (Holy vague topic, Batman, good thing I didn’t. I would have been one of those “ten years and counting” PhD students.)

My point: What I’m actually doing is arguably the precise opposite of what I wanted to do. I work exclusively in English. I am primarily preoccupied with domestic issues. I did not know the job title of “public policy analyst” existed until after university was complete.

I use this personal example to highlight that we lack control in many areas of life. However, we loooooove the illusion of control.

With something so deeply emotional, intimate and personal as having children, our desire for control is heightened. That’s why unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are so difficult. That’s why longing to be pregnant when you can’t be is so difficult. My sense is that IVF is the flip side of an abortion-friendly culture, even while doing the opposite (creating life instead of ending it).

I say that without judgement of those women who pursue IVF, because I know–trust me, I know–what it feels like to want children. The temptation is there to pull out the Excel sheet and start plotting the points on the graph about how our lives will go. Children by 35, successful career too. Family and professional success. It’s not wrong to desire that. But it is not always under our control.

On Monday, all on one short day, I learned one friend has a cancer diagnosis, another friend got engaged. A low. A high. Neither were controllable.

The pressure is there: I should have a house! People my age are doing X, Y and Z! It is so hard to let go. My personal comfort lies in the dusty Bible on your shelf:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:13-17)

I am trying to live in a manner that shows my life has a purpose and a plan, while at the same time openly acknowledging that I am not the author of said purpose and plan.

Someone sent me the article above and I’ll freely admit it’s what I want to hear. I’ll drink to the notion that women in their mid and even late thirties can have children too. I’ve certainly seen it often enough. But ultimately, I’ll be lifting my glass to this crazy life with all its twists and turns. Not to get too super duper religious in one short blog post, but the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

Here ends the sermon.

Yesterday was a rant, today is a sermon. I just never know where my writing will take me.

(Me with a rental car, some five years ago, back when I still believed I had lots of control. Which raises the question of why I chose that car.)

___________________________

Faye adds: This really is an interesting, myth-busting piece. Huh:

The data, imperfect as they are, suggest two conclusions. No. 1: fertility declines with age. No. 2, and much more relevant: the vast majority of women in their late 30s will be able to get pregnant on their own. The bottom line for women, in my view, is: plan to have your last child by the time you turn 40. Beyond that, you’re rolling the dice, though they may still come up in your favor. “Fertility is relatively stable until the late 30s, with the inflection point somewhere around 38 or 39,” Steiner told me. “Women in their early 30s can think about years, but in their late 30s, they need to be thinking about months.” That’s also why many experts advise that women older than 35 should see a fertility specialist if they haven’t conceived after six months—particularly if it’s been six months of sex during fertile times.

I just wrote a new blog post at ActivateCFPL in response to Joyce Arthur’s demand that the media shut out pro-life voices:

The accusation that the media was being too balanced in its coverage of Morgentaler’s death is a ridiculous claim. Even by Arthur’s own analysis of the media coverage, a significant number of stories – 37 per cent of those she reviewed – didn’t include interviews with pro-life Canadians. But if “extreme” or minority positions should be ignored by the media, than by her own standard, Arthur is the one who should be excluded from engaging with the media. Ever.  Again.

In Arthur’s attempt to exclude pro-life Canadians from the media and the public square, she condemns herself to the same fate with her irrational and ridiculous standards.