I love dogs. Truly. But this strikes me as insane. Remember the case of the baby killed by the dog in Calgary? People are volunteering to adopt that dog. Now there’s a liability I don’t want… I remember my friend’s dog simply nipping unnecessarily at her toddler and she had the dog put down. It’s very sad. But when dogs kill people, I do think they should be put down, not adopted. I can negotiate this position for dogs that simply bite people, although being attacked is less than fun. (This happened to me some 28 years ago, and I’ve not forgotten. Scar’s still there, too–physical, not emotional.)

I will be discussing this on Charles Adler’s show on Sun TV tonight:

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

I suppose in a country where there are no legal limitations to abortion, the abortion advocate must turn to other things. What can you ask for in a world where you’ve gotten all you want? More of the same, in the form of access, access, access. For Canada’s “abortion rights” community to continue being active in the political realm, they have to keep asking for things, “progressing”. But what more could you possibly want in Canada?

This is where we begin the argument for abortion access in teeny tiny Anne of Green Gables flaunting PEI, because if you’re an abortion rights advocate in Canada, you’re still running down the dream of “Wherever and whenever a women wants an abortion, she shall easily have one.” Yes, that’s the goal. That if a woman anywhere in this country wants an abortion, we ought give it to her there and then. No cost, no questions, no recourse. So I have to ask myself, what would this “utopia” look like? What exactly are they fighting for?

Immediately the sci-fi novels of my youth start to populate my imagination with images of women walking in the woods, at church, paddling in a canoe, at a shopping mall, and all with immediate access to abortion. How? Maybe there’s a red button, and every woman can get one on her arm, and each time she presses it… presto, abortion. But would it stop there? No, if you’re an abortion rights advocate, you’d say, “Those button providers are too far away!” Women might have to travel some distance to get a button, then what? Maybe they’d all be given one at birth? Would it stop there?

The more we try to envision what an abortion advocates “perfect world” looks like, the more crazy it seems. When Canadians start telling them just how crazy this scenario is, then we’ll be moving in the right direction.

I missed Joyce Arthur’s piece in The Mark. But today Google Alerts brought me this Lifesite article with Angus Reid’s response.

In short, Joyce Arthur is claiming the polling company is biased for asking Canadians about whether or not there should be restrictions on abortion. Angus Reid replies:

[Angus Reid’s] Canseco further lambasted Arthur for taking to task the wording of the answer when ARCC’s own website defends what the organization calls a “constitutionally-based right to unrestricted, fully-funded abortion, without legal or other barriers or discrimination due to gender, class, ethnicity, race, age, location/region (or area of residence), or any other characteristic, including reasons for choosing an abortion.”

“This is not something we wrote—it is the second affirmation in the ‘Our Vision’ section of the ARCC website,” said Canseco. “Ms. Arthur now writes that this ‘unrestricted right’ does not exist, yet it certainly does in her own organization’s documentation.”

This is one of the most interesting parts of the exchange. Organizations like Joyce Arthur’s actively support a Canada in which women can have an abortion up to the time of birth, no questions asked. Yet to state that this is what we have legislatively, on paper, right now, is apparently controversial.

I always find it interesting, how stating this fact of Canadian law raises pro-choice ire. It doesn’t matter to me if few abortions are late term, or if they are done for “good reasons,” like fetal abnormality. (Pains me to write that, but I digress.) We permit it in law to be so, and that’s a fact. Furthermore, I’ve witnessed a conferee at a pro-abortion conference at University of Toronto Law school in January 2008 ask questions about why ninth month gestation abortions should be denied women, even for social reasons. The hosts were disquieted, but that’s their stakeholder group. The premise for pro-choicers is that female autonomy means women can choose to have an abortion for any reason at any time. I disagree with that, vociferously, in fact. But that is their point of view and it is reflected in Canadian law. They should celebrate it, instead of denying it.

Would anyone say Kate Middleton is not beautiful?

What about Audrey Hepburn?

So why would you force yourself to wear this, and then be subjected to a critical analysis play by play as to whether your dress became indecent?

Modest is the new sexy.

May 5, 2012, a day-long conference about human trafficking in Ottawa. Read more about it, here.

I caught this story this week and wanted to blog about it, but didn’t have time. So here I am, catching up with this item this fine snowy Saturday.

Here’s the gist of the story:

The Active-8 program encourages people to make positive changes. It features eight young people from Atlantic Canada, who are meant to serve as an inspiration for building a better world. People can pledge on the Active-8 website to do a good deed in support of one of the youth ambassadors and the person with the most pledges at the end of February wins $1,000.

One of the youth, Kandace Hagen, wants to open up PEI to abortion. It’s the only province that doesn’t have abortion clinics on its soil. A pro-life activist drew attention to this, and asked people to vote for someone else else, hence the CBC story.

What do the other youth activists want?

Anna Fricker wants to put an end to poverty in East Africa, after spending some time in Tanzania.

Deg Nath Neaupaney spent 18 years of his life in a refugee camp in Nepal and as a result wants to work for peace and freedom.

Elena Fenrick has worked in a hospital and school for underprivileged children in Morocco and made a film about it.

Tara Brinston wants to help improve the world for people with disabilities.

I could go on. These are inspiring young people who have seen some injustice and want to rectify it.

Then there’s pro-choice Kandace, whose concern is that when women want an abortion on PEI they have to travel to the mainland to get it.

To summarize, her struggle is that women in her province can’t get a procedure of  dubious benefit in exactly the way she wants. (“I said a latté! Not a cappucino!”) Her own abortion, for example, required her to travel.

Let me address the thought you may have had that my latté/cappucino is mean and unwarranted.

And let me further state that I meant it.

This kind of campaign for “reproductive justice” for women is the result of an uneducated, immature worldview that results in true injustice being glossed over and swapped for a twisted fake version of it.

She’s campaigning for the rights of powerful people to trample over little people, in a world where people starve, are put in jail for nothing, have their freedoms removed, have to move across oceans away from their families and homes in order to survive.

She’s sitting pretty on one of the quietest, most peaceful places on God’s green earth and campaigning for injustice to be further perpetuated.

Seems to me that a vote for her is a vote for a string of silly, immature euphemisms, strung together in a way that would make Orwell proud but does nothing whatsoever for the girls and women of PEI, in sharp contrast to a group of focused and concerned young people who have seen real injustice and are working to combat it.

And that’s the way I see that. Here ends the rant.

I thought it was quite frank and interesting when examining the political side of abortion. Read it here.

Are children aborted because of their sex? Yes. Are they aborted because of their sex in Western countries? Yes, and now there’s proof.

In some countries (Canada isn’t one of them) it’s illegal to abort a baby simply because the parents prefer one sex over the other, but even in those countries it appears gender specific abortions are still taking place. Tomorrow’s headline for The Daily Telegraph will read, “Baby girls aborted, no questions asked“.

The video footage for this article can now be found here.

______________________

Andrea adds: Worth watching the video footage. Very uncomfortable.

As a working mother — aren’t we all? Ok, let me try this again… As a mother who happens to work outside the home in exchange for a pay cheque albeit not nearly as hard as I work inside the home for no pay and a lot more stress… I feel like I owe the universe a post on the baby-in-the House-of-Commons kerfuffle. Then Andrea sent me this link and asked if I would be interested in sharing my opinion on the topic… Well, since you asked!

The issue has been handled in the media as one of mothers in the workplace, and rightfully so, although there is the narrower issue of whether babies belong in the House of Commons. I am not only an employed mother, I am incidentally employed by the House of Commons. For more on my somewhat-less-than-glamourous political career, you can read this post (in French): Je travaille pour un député à la Chambre des communes.

Do babies belong in the House of Commons? Frankly, I don’t see why not. For all the hand-wringing about proper decorum I must ask two questions: “What decorum?” and “Is a baby a worst offense to proper House decorum than, say, Justin Trudeau’s “piece of shit” and Vic Toews’ “You’re either with us or with the child pornographers” quips? If you yearn for proper House decorum, why not start with Question Period and questioners who don’t ask real questions? (a Liberal specialty: “Is the Minister lying or simply too stupid to see what’s going on?” You expect the Minister to answer that?) or with members of government reading from prepared statements instead of answering genuine questions about policy or governance?

You must see the House as it really is, with people coming and going, thumbing their berries, writing greeting cards, excusing themselves to the lobby for a quick bite or a meeting with staff. The House is a happenin’ place. Throw in a baby during a vote; it would have been a regular day at the office if it weren’t for MPs taking pictures and causing a commotion.

To the question do babies belong in the House of Commons my answer is “Why not?” I agree with the Globe’s editorial:

Mr. Scheer’s ruling is a clear demonstration that, even in the most august settings, mothers must always be able to bring their babies to work with them when emergencies arise. It is not a legal precedent, but it is certainly a moral one.

Which leads us to the wider issue of women in the workplace and whether or not giving them leeway to manage their family obligations while working is indeed a moral precedent. Naomi Lakritz from the Calgary Herald certainly thinks it is not:

Ladies, the world isn’t going to hand itself to you on a silver platter. It may offer you some things and may make some concessions to your status as mothers, but you’ve got to rise to meet the world halfway. You’ve got to do the rest. And you’ve got to understand and respect the idea that there are some places where babies simply don’t belong.

According to Lakritz (read the entire piece here), by asking for accommodations working mothers are acting like whiny wusses. This is a widespread view among some women. A few years ago I wrote a post for ProWomanProLife where I lamented the absence of creative thinking when it came to accommodating working mothers. A reader wrote back something along the lines of “I never thought of you as whiny and high maintenance…” Others believe that women “want it all on Thursday”: for everything there is a season and you can have it all but not on the same day. And let’s not forget the childless — by choice or otherwise — who wonder why, for the same pay, they have to pick-up the slack from  their procreative peers. And all the other mothers who were not given any breaks and wonder — almost jealously — why others should get one.

All this to me is almost irrelevant. As are the reasons why women work, whether they are seeking parity with men, self-fulfillment or a pay cheque. Do we have a societal obligation to make it easier for women, as Naomi Lakritz suggests? I don’t know. But what I do know is that if we don’t owe anything to Sana Hassaini, we owe the world to her son Skander-Jack. We fail children when we look at women in the workplace in isolation. We should be encouraging parents to develop strong bonds with their infants. And in our government-supported healthcare system, we should be pulling all the stops to make sure that infants are breastfed and spend the least amount of time in institutionalized daycare. (If you think I’m making too much out of the common cold go ask any healthcare provider at the Children Hospital of Eastern Ontario how their month of February has been so far.) And maybe your point is that mothers of young infants — and possibly mothers writ large — shouldn’t be working. But I would answer that this horse has left the barn some time ago. And while you are chasing it, may I ask what you suggest we do about the children?

Skander-Jack’s place is with his mother, regardless of where his mother thinks her place is. I’m glad that Skander-Jack was with his mom in the House rather than a nanny in Verchere-Petite-Patrie. What are we supposed to tell him, all 3-month-old cutie? Suck it up, it’s not our problem that your mom wanted to change the world during your formative years? I work for a MP and I can guarantee you that his mom will miss plenty of his most important milestones over the next 4 years. Why don’t we let him this one?