And this guy is just the one to give it. Enjoy.

“Rare” is a play about people who have Down Syndrome. The actors also have Down Syndrome. Nothing upsets me more than abortion for disability. And seeing as 90 percent of Downs babies are aborted, it’s not surprising that this play has a pro-life theme, asking mothers not to kill their unborn children:

Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech, for example, segues into a scene about women who choose to have abortions rather than delivering children with Down syndrome.

Nicholas Herd, an emotive dancer who treats his homosexuality in a refreshingly matter-of-fact way, notes the rage he feels about that. Then, Nausbaum recites a letter she has written to pregnant women urging them to “be brave.” This seems like the slightly hair-raising point of the show: Here we are, dancing, singing and sharing – please, allow us to exist.

But the implications aren’t probed. If it’s cowardly for a woman to abort a child she doesn’t think she can handle raising because it has Down syndrome, then how is it right to abort a baby she thinks she can’t support for more prosaic financial reasons?

Rare may, indeed, be a rarity – a pro-life play. (Perhaps Canadian theatre’s most notable lack of diversity is in terms of ideology.)

Admirable that this writer did a review. Admirable that he is asking some of the right questions, yes. But note how he can’t seem to understand that aborting for Downs is wrong, as is aborting for more prosaic financial reasons. It’s like he’s coming at the issue backwards. He thinks abortion for any reason (example: financial) is OK. Now he’s faced with PEOPLE who are acting in a play, asking mothers to let their people live, so to speak. And faced with this, he does what any decent human being would do–acknowledge their right to exist. Yet if abortion for “prosaic financial reasons” is OK, why should abortion of people with Downs not be?

I’m hoping he’ll ponder his way to clarity on this.

Apparently, The Second Rape of Dr. Emily Pershing by B.J. LeCrae is a good read and available for mere cents on Amazon. Check it out! (I have not read it.)

Because of articles like this one. Who else can make a discussion of abortion and pornography funny?

The presence of a new baby or a pregnant woman would certainly mess up the storyline (I use the term loosely) of the typical porn film. Outside the porn industry, contraception with abortion as a backup delivers women to men for their use. Separating sex from conception removes constraints and responsibilities from men, and invites them to use women as objects. This is just as Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae, back in 1968.

You can check out her website, here.

[Editor’s note: I initially titled this post “Don’t click on that link” but that, in Twitter, looks like this is itself an actual bad post. Which it isn’t. The link I don’t want you to click on, is from Toronto Life, explained below.]

Lately, I’ve become even more concerned about the hyper-sexualized culture we live in. (I know, you thought it wasn’t possible. Andrea Mrozek gets more conservative than she already was! Amazing!)  I did not watch the Superbowl, but the really not at all socially conservative Jon Kay of the National Post had a Facebook status update thanking the NFL for making the half-time show into a “parade of harlots.” And I believe those words were in CAPS for emphasis.

Meanwhile, over at Toronto Life, there’s some sort of profile of Anna Silk and the show Lost Girl:

Where Lost Girl sets itself apart is the sex, and not just the sheer quantity of it, though Silk fakes more onscreen copulation than any other TV actor not contractually bound to HBO. Rather, it’s the series’ overarching erotic ethos that makes it stand out, a general attitude toward sex that saturates every scene.

“Erotic ethos” and “sex saturating every scene.” I cry foul and continue to ask anyone who will listen to join the prude revolution. I don’t care what you call me: prude, repressed, etc. I’ve heard it all before. Truly.

So I won’t link to this article. But I will discuss the problems associated with it–which I seem to be meeting everywhere I go these days. Hello, pornified culture, how do you do? I wasn’t looking to meet you, but I did, anyway. Please go away.

According to a recent (January 2013 study) risk factors for pre-term birth include:

education less than high school, having a previous medical condition, developing a new medical condition or health problem during pregnancy, being a primigravida, or being a multigravida with a previous PTB or a previous miscarriage or abortion.

I’m thinking I know which of those risk factors will become highly contentious and political? We’ll be free to talk about how education less than high school is a problem. We’ll be free to talk about how developing a new medical condition is a problem. We won’t be free to talk about how abortion is a problem.

Just an educated guess.

If you haven’t already, don’t forget to go to www.canadianTVfirst.ca and sign, so that Sun News can get equal treatment from the CRTC. Whether you love or hate Sun News is largely irrelevant, because a diversity of news voices is always good.

Meanwhile, here’s a clip of me speaking with Ezra about the latest scandal pertaining to babies born alive and left to die–how, we don’t know–when they were intended to be aborted.

Abortion is not a right. Neither are we losing said “right” as much as I’d wish that to be so. But we are on a slippery slope of a different kind when we hold hands with depravity, which is what killing a fetus past 20 weeks is. Thank you, Barbara Kay, for pointing this out:

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality. Is this really what most Canadians want, or are they just too cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby to speak up?

A pro-life group in Abbotsford mounts a pro-life display in a farmer’s field each year. Crosses are arranged in the field, each one representing a life lost to abortion.

Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is demanding that the display be removed:

It is inappropriate for the City to use its resources and authority to approve what is basically a sectarian religious message that is divisive and upsetting for the community. The sign reflects a common anti-abortion slogan used by the Christian Right against abortion. In addition, the sign is juxtaposed with a display of Christian crosses, making clear the religious meaning of the entire display, which encompasses both the sign and the crosses.

There are so many issues with this statement and with her letter as a whole, but thankfully, André Schutten has offered an apt response.

But what really caught my attention in Ms. Arthur’s letter is the following:

The sign and display are offensive to many people, particularly for many women in your community who have had or may be considering an abortion. This issue was brought to our attention by an Abbotsford resident who has become so upset and traumatized by the display year after year that she changes her route to avoid it and is considering moving out of the city.

A woman was traumatized by the display. I’ll assume from the context that this is a post-abortive woman. A post-abortive woman was traumatized by a display that communicates that an abortion ends a human life. She is so traumatized by the display that she changes her route and is considering leaving the city.

I’m both pro-woman and pro-life. I do not want to see women hurt, wounded or traumatized. My heart breaks for this woman and for the child or children that were aborted.

Why is she hurting? Did she not know that abortion ends a life? Was she told that there are no real side-effects, physical or emotional, to having an abortion and she is shocked by what she’s feeling?

Is it a row of wooden crosses that is so deeply affecting her? Or is it the reality of abortion?

If you’re post-abortive and hurting, there are people who can help.

It warmed my heart to hear about abortion on the newscast this morning, and then to see abortion as front page news in the National Post. Hats off to Patricia Maloney for breaking the news that Canada too, leaves infants born alive to die. And hats off to Maurice Vellacott and the other two MPs who are asking the RCMP to investigate this. I heard NDP Megan Leslie asking in Question Period–will the Conservative Government confirm that abortion is not murder? Or something to that effect. Just the fact that she asks that questions draws a line for Canadians to what abortion is. Does someone die, or not? Is it right to leave babies to die? Is that murder?

Keep pondering, Canada.

I am ashamed of what our country sanctions in this regard, and I am not proud that we pay for abortions. But I am happy to see the ball inching forward thanks to the tireless and courageous efforts of many pro-lifers across the country.

Finally, as if we didn’t know this, not all women sanction abortion. (I don’t claim to represent those who don’t want to be represented!)