Well, I’ll be darned:

His biological mother conceived him as an unmarried teenager. Now 75 years of age, he still speaks very lovingly about his childhood and the wonderful people who surrounded him as a young boy. It was this background that firmed up his opposition to abortion and his support for the pro-life movement. “I don’t have the right to any other view,” he once said. “My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life. If June and Ethel (his biological mother and grandmother) had been of less character, I would have never lived. These women gave me the gift of life.”

If he is, he’s been pretty quiet about it. But then again, speaking out at pro-life rallies probably wouldn’t have landed him quite as many great parts. Who is to say? One doesn’t have to wear the defence of life on one’s sleeve, so long as when push comes to shove, you know where you stand.

This study came out suggesting that free birth control decreases the abortion rate.

In a big picture way, this is untrue. We saw abortion rates soar with widespread pill use. (I’m talking the long view of history here.)

In a small picture way, I’ll take their study at face value. However, they aren’t talking about giving away the Pill. They are talking about IUDs.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time.

That’s an interesting point of the article. Women are given the impression that  the birth control pill is 100 percent effective. Only in advocating for IUD implants do we hear otherwise.

What I always wonder when I read these articles is this: Why do we care about decreasing the abortion rate?

Apparently, some decent pro-choicers do. Because inherently they know abortion as birth control–which is how we use it–is wrong.

That’s the only silver lining I can come up with from a report that free IUDs decrease abortions.

Interesting article here, by Barbara Kay.

Shouldn’t all women seeking abortions know all this stuff? I once sent a sleuth into three different abortion clinics posing as a woman who was having difficulty making up her mind about an abortion. She asked for a consultation in each clinic. Each time she was urged to simply fill out the forms and book the abortion for the next day. She had to press hard to get a consultation with a doctor. In each case she specifically asked the doctor if there were any side effects or downside to abortion. Each time the doctor emphatically assured her there was no downside or risks to a future pregnancy, even after multiple abortions. They lied, and they could lie, because there are no regulations around informed consent.

I have heard from women who have had abortions that they generally are quite amazed at the expediency with which the whole thing went down. They were talking more about the emotional side of things; no one ever gave them any reason to pause. One  of these women I’ll put in the “mild regrets” category. It is possible that were women given someone to talk to, and more information, they might not go ahead with abortion so easily.

Then again, if the culture we live in continues to devalue life in the womb and pregnant women more generally, then no amount of “this abortion could cause premature delivery for your first wanted child” is going to help.

The story of their founding features a lot of women who think like me on abortion. Ie. it’s hogwash that you aren’t pro-woman if you are pro-life. Inspirational. Enjoy.

Rona Ambrose is no coward:

Obviously, since we’re prepared to support a woman’s right to choose despite the fact some women (and men) will choose to have abortions because, for example, they forgot to use birth control, we’re prepared to permit women (and men) to abort fetuses because they’re female.I think it’s pro-choicers who are morally uncomfortable with this reality, who tend to lash out at Ambrose and others, accusing them of having a hidden agenda to bring back laws restricting abortion.

What they’re really saying is Ambrose is guilty of thought crime.

Pro-“choice” irony number 2867: Pro-choicers say they stand for freedom to do what you want to do. But when a Minister says something that disagrees with their supposed freedom-loving stand, they ask for her to be canned. I am not sure they have ever adequately addressed this problem, other than to say again and again and again that “it’s about choice.” Then I say, “but what is the choice? Because if it’s killing then it’s not a choice, and if it’s not, I don’t care.” And then they launch ad hominem attacks about how dumb I am.

Rinse, repeat.

Remember to write the Prime Minister in support of Rona Ambrose at [email protected]. Also sign this petition.

It’s uncanny how much this sounds like what Canadians experienced last week with Rona Ambrose. From the UK:

The Conservative minister for women has backed calls for a reduction in the legal limit for abortions, because advances in medical technology mean many very premature babies now survive after birth.

And the response of pro-abortion advocates: (Deliberate use of term “pro-abortion” here, in case anyone is offended by that. Ask me why!)

Darinka Aleksic, the campaign co-ordinator for Abortion Rights, said: “The fact that the minister responsible for women and equalities wants to restrict access to abortion, one of the most important women’s health services, is really alarming.”

It doesn’t matter what the reason is (this UK minister cites scientific development whereby we see babies live at younger and younger ages), some of these abortion rights folks balk whenever abortion is being restricted for any reason at all.

They stand for abortion rights, not women’s rights, and the two have virtually nothing to do with each other.

I like to keep things light around here, which has decidedly not been the case lately. Let me then turn to a quote from the book of Yoda’s wisdom that my sister gave me recently. This came with a small Yoda figurine.

Luke: Is the dark side stronger?

Yoda: No…no…no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

I leave that with you. Your thought for the day. Along with “When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not.”

Like I said, the wisdom of Yoda.

An article about this in the Globe and Mail. It opens with this:

A second abortion-related motion proposed by a backbench Conservative MP could trigger a new debate about the parameters of a woman’s right to choose in Canada.

I know it’s just a lede into the story, and you have to start somewhere. But there is no longer any sense in saying anything is “triggering” a “new” debate about the parameters of abortion. (I refuse to use the euphemism “a woman’s right to choose.” Everyone should be aware of just how useless that language is. For example, I am in favour of a woman’s right to choose. Choose your education, choose your school, choose your spouse, choose your political party. If you choose to kill your unborn child, you ought to know that is exactly what you are doing, without hiding behind vague notions of “rights” and “choice.” Let me return to my point now.)

The debate is here. It has not been triggered anew, it is simply here. For many of us, it’s been here for a long while. So we all ought to get used to this, especially my opponents on the issue who are so fond of the sounds of silence.

I have had numerous people contact me to ask whether Rona Ambrose is an MP worth defending. Ie. is she pro-life? Is she a solid MP, a trustworthy Member of Parliament? Fern Hill, deeply opposed to all I stand for and believe in, has written in to point out Rona never answered any of Campaign Life’s questions.

I happen to think Rona Ambrose is a decent MP. I think she’s trustworthy. I think she is doing a more than competent job.

I do not think she is pro-life. Do not buy into the heightened rhetoric around this issue, either from pro-lifers or pro-abortion folks. (Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is saying publicly that Rona Ambrose is “anti-choice.” I wish this were true, but it wouldn’t be the first time Joyce got something wrong.)

We are supporting her because we support freedom of speech. We are supporting her because everyone has the right to a free vote, even if the vote is considered, however nominally, to lean in a pro-life direction. We are supporting her because some exceptionally virulent pro-abortion (not pro-choice) forces are asking for her head. And we are supporting her to send a message to the Prime Minister’s office that turfing a Minister because she votes “against the Prime Minister” is perfectly unacceptable.

There are many good reasons to support Rona Ambrose, but it’s not because she is pro-life. We don’t know that. No one knows that.

Freedom of speech is good enough a reason to write the Prime Minister, so I hope you’ll still do so today.

[email protected] and [email protected]

She preferred to remain anonymous on this blog:

Prime Minister,

I’m appalled by the calls for Minister Ambrose’s resignation as minister for the status of women because of her vote on Motion 312. First, because she has been doing an excellent job as Minister and second because it was the right vote.

This was not a question of “conscience” but one about science, medical practice and public spending. Just as one example, in Canada we spend millions dollars caring for premature infants in neonatal units who are the same gestational age as ones who are aborted. This is an incoherent state of affairs – saving the same life that we legally terminate. We need to have a definition of when life begins to at the very least give guidance to medical practice and more critically to underpin our system of rights. Our laws need to make sense and right now, even from a “pro-choice” perspective they don’t. I can think of no other area, where lives are at stake, that we leave it up to practitioners to apply guideline at their discretion rather than hard law. Everyone agrees that at some point before birth we are dealing with a baby and that is reason enough to seriously address the question.

Minister Ambrose’s vote said – I am for debate, for an answer to these questions and for a settlement of the issue. She did not vote, as you did, to uphold a status quo which most people are unaware of and two third of Canadians would not support. Instead, as a woman leader she took a neutral stance that allows for debate of the issue. What else should be expected?

If you remove Minister Ambrose for voting to study a policy issue you will be taking this country in a bad direction. You will be saying that parliament is no longer the place where we settle debates – leaving us with twitter spats, anti-abortion and pro-abortion marches and media name calling.

I’m a woman, in my early thirties, I’m an engineer – just the kind of person the feminists dreamed of – and I don’t want to live in a country where a woman leader is fired for upholding democracy.