Judith Timson has long been writing columns trapped somewhere in the 60s. Ie. out of touch and more than a little condescending. Here’s another one.

I find it misogynistic to claim that “women’s rights” come down to birth control and abortion. I find it misogynistic to force a woman’s body to act exactly like a man’s and then claim that is “empowerment.” I find it misogynistic to suggest that women have no better options than to be…men. I find it simplistic, at best, to claim that conservatives or Conservatives somehow are represented by the Todd Akin’s of the world.

My main problem with the Judith Timsons of the world is their myopia. Such a small, dry, uncreative world they live in.

Margaret Somerville in today’s Ottawa Citizen.

Nothing.

It’s a busy season with life and work so I’ve not been blogging as much but obviously I was catching glimpses of these names thrown together in various news items. I thought there was an association. There isn’t; it’s a case of the Democrats throwing mud and seeing what will stick. Lots of it is sticking, but there wasn’t an association to begin with.

This is why soon enough politics will be devoid of every single last decent person, on both sides of the political spectrum. Political parties of all persuasions use this sort of mud-throwing tactic and decent people aren’t all that interested in participating. That’s the way I see it, anyway.

Even stories saying women are doing really super great with the hookup culture have a bit of a poignant side:

When I asked Tali what she really wanted, she didn’t say anything about commitment or marriage or a return to a more chival­rous age. “Some guy to ask me out on a date to the frozen-­yogurt place,” she said. That’s it. A $3 date.

You can have random sex, but you can’t get a guy to take you out for ice cream. Well done, sexual revolution, well done.

Next time I’m in DC, I’m going to see if I can meet with Charmaine Yoest. (Then I can report back to Natalie, who wants to be like Charmaine when she grows up.) She sounds smart and strategic, even when the media are against what she does. I like it!

Non-parents should tread lightly into the arena of how to parent. Lightly, or not at all. But you know who else shouldn’t intervene? Government. To bottle or to breastfeed: That is Not the Question (for government to ask).

The problem is: So Much of Everything IS government-subsidized that they get understandably mixed up on what the real issues are for governments to undertake.

Then they end up doing pro-breastfeeding campaigns.

I realized the other day that all of us love having the state in the bedrooms of our nation. We love it. (And the living room, and the kitchen, the deck, the backyard, the bathroom and the study. We have government everywhere.)

At this point I will add the great irony that many a pro-choicer will gladly shout “my body, my choice” but they will also decry defunding abortion. That’s a little bit like a teenager boldly declaring they are going to leave home and be independent, while asking for the parental bank account number and pin.

That pro-lifers are anti-science is oddly, a charge often thrown. But when a bunch of doctors fail to acknowledge what medical textbooks already say, confuse American jurisprudence with Canadian and give power to a motion that not even an official bill would have, there’s not a peep from the media. Cue the chirping crickets.

Brian Lilley and I discuss the recent Canadian Medical Association decision on M-312, here.

Saying that you wish your mother had aborted you because she would have been better off is certainly provocative.

However, claiming that saying this is proof-positive that abortion is necessary is gobsmackingly ridiculous.

As long as anti-choicers are spinning (sometimes obviously false) narratives about last-minute epiphanies and divine deliverance, we need people like Beisner to tell their own stories—even the deep, dark, painful ones—about the necessity of abortion for women’s equality.

There is no reasonable way, ever, to prove this is true. I could say “My parents would have been better off had they emigrated to the UK,” or “I would have done better in life had I gone to Harvard,” however, since we only get one go round in life, and my parents came to Canada and I went to UofT, none of this can ever be proven.

The Sliding Doors phenomenon is reserved for the movies. This is why it is entirely not compelling to me to hear someone say “I wish my mother had aborted me” claiming she would have been better off. She doesn’t know. No one knows. “Better off dead” philosophies aren’t generally very compelling. For who is to say an abortion would not have caused her mother to commit suicide or some other tragedy? Wouldn’t be the first time.

Imagine how this would change the landscape. Would men take such a pill? Would women trust them to?

In the search for a cancer cure, researchers have developed a molecule that could function as a non-hormonal, reversible form of male birth control.

The Canadian Medical Association votes against Stephen Woodworth’s motion, saying “life begins when a baby emerges from it’s mother’s womb.”

I’m sure the ob-gyns who do surgery in utero are pretty confident there’s something going on in there. This is a purely political statement from a medical body.

I also found this interesting:

This attempt to modify the definition of a human being could legally recognize the fetus, which would give the fetus rights,” said Montreal physician Dr. Genevieve Desbiens “This constitutes a recriminalization, not only of abortion, but any form of contraception,” she said.

Would that mean, finally, an admission that contraceptives don’t always work simply to prevent pregnancy?