In an increasingly secular environment, the world turns to the ethicist to determine what is morally “right” and what is “wrong”. This is why the voices of individuals like Peter Singer, the Australian ethicist who argues for the rights of parents and doctors to kill already born children, aren’t simply echoes in academic ivory towers but rather a very real and tangible societal culling song. In this article the author Stella Young, a sufferer of Osteogenesis Imperfecta, makes her case against Peter Singer.

For me, Singer’s views about the hypothetical are not hypothetical at all. While he may see value in the life I’m living now, and may even treat me as an equal, he still believes that on the balance of things, parents and doctors should be given the choice to end lives like mine before they get tricky. For me, and for many other people with disabilities, it’s personal.

I’m trying to think through the bigger picture, the philosophical side, the logical reasoning on why I long ago started disliking Cosmo. You could say, oh, she’s religious, and the Pope told her to hate it, or you could say she’s conservative, which for some, apparently discounts all logical thinking. But the truth is I disliked Cosmo long before I was religious, and before I had words to give to my probably then-latent conservatism. I think in my gut I found it demeaning. And dare I say it: Predictable, aka just a little boring. Then I read this piece in the Post and of course, I disagreed with it, but what I want to do is think more seriously about why. The woman just passed away and I’m inclined to not speak ill of the dead. But I can’t help but see someone whose potential and talents were wasted by her pruriency.

_________________________

Update: A good article about the hidden conservatism of Helen Gurley Brown, here.

Lovely little piece on what parenting is: Hard and rewarding. Rewarding because it is hard?

Wish we could read more pieces like this. Realistic and inspirational.

Perhaps they can double as purses. No comment on whether I think this is effective activism. More just a little bit strange to me, to be honest.

Neither had I. She was a pro-life Democrat who ran for the Democrat nomination for President in 1976. We don’t hear much about pro-life Democrats: this sort of strong woman doesn’t make it into the movies. (Although I will grant that the recent Thatcher movie was a rare and welcome exception to the rule.)

You can read more about her, here.

From a wise woman, who I am honoured to call a friend. She once competed against Jessica Zelinka:

I was obligated to wear a bikini to race in all relay events that I competed in during university as it was our team uniform. However, I asked for permission to be allowed to wear a loose pinney (sp?) and short tights while I competed in individual events. I was just more comfortable with not having my ass and stomach exposed every 4 seconds. That being said I also never felt “fit enough,” which is hilarious, in retrospect. My coach was constantly telling me I was too fat. Perhaps had I felt fit enough (ie skinny enough) I would have happily worn the bikini? In reality, I don’t think I would have ever feel completely comfortable wearing it, but who knows. There is definitely peer pressure to wear the bikini. In my humble opinion, the men’s tight shorts are also far too revealing. Who wants to see all that? Not me. Especially not when their uniforms are white. Thank you very much.

I think it (image/looks) will always be an issue for female athletes. It’s an interesting dynamic as I think women feel just as strong a desire to be taken seriously as athletes as they do to be attractive to men. After all, the track (or field) is just a micro stage for the greater stage that is life, no?

Since we’ve mentioned both women on this blog before, here’s a clip of the race neither of them won.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q3Qdt0z6NA&feature=plcp]

There’s also been this article  in the New York Times about how Lolo Jones is “all about the image,” writing that “women have struggled for decades to be appreciated as athletes.” If that’s true, then I’m not sure how running in bikinis helps the problem, for Lolo Jones or anyone else.

Check out this story from yesterday, featuring one Véronique Bergeron of ProWomanProLife fame.

The article isn’t terrible, but as I told Véronique, the Globe and Mail is, from a worldview standpoint, completely incapable of taking on the issues of families, working and daycare in a way I would truly appreciate.

Also, feel free to comment on the Globe’s comment page. It could use some normal, respectful people from what I can tell (although the comments are not quite as vicious in every case as I would have expected). You will need to sign in to make a comment and yes, this is a pain, however, worth your while.

This is a new site: Pro-Life Liberals. I am not a pro-life liberal, it should go without saying. However, I certainly do appreciate every person who “comes out” in support of life. I’m also aware that a handful of my readers are (perhaps I should do a poll to find out just how many. Hmmm. A thought).I also find that being pro-life can bridge many a political divide, since regardless of other political views the desire to eradicate abortion is a very strong one for so many of us.

Welcome then, Pro-life Liberals, and happy blogging.

The MET (2176 Prince of Wales Drive) is showing October Baby this coming Sunday evening (August 12). They will have two showings, 4 PM & 6 PM.  Admission is Free. A freewill offering will be taken up for First Place Options.

October Baby tells the story of a young woman named Hannah, played by newcomer Rachel Hendrix, who discovers early in the film that her mother tried but failed to abort her late in her pregnancy. She was subsequently adopted and spends much of the movie looking for her birth mother. Costarring John Schneider and Jasmine Guy, “October Baby” received a token release last October, bringing its cumulative returns to $1.9 million” (LA Times, March 2012).