So the web site getting people to vote on whether a baby should be born or aborted really is a hoax. What a twisted thing to do.

I can really only think of one thing more twisted, and that’s the very many clinics we have actually aborting babies daily and calling it “women’s rights.”

______________________

Brigitte adds: If I understand correctly, they did it as a “pro-life” stunt. I would just like the record to show that this here pro-lifer very much disagrees with this kind of tactic. It’s not just twisted, it’s also quite stupid.

Paul Tuns has something nice to say about Laureen Harper:

Laureen Harper’s political activities are usually subtle and behind the scenes, so when the prime minister’s wife takes up the cause of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced to be hanged for alleged infidelity, it is a big deal. She brought together more than a dozen prominent Canadians to brainstorm on the best way to ensure the cause remains in the public eye. I don’t believe Tehran cares one bit about international opinion, but it is nice to see Laureen Harper raising a genuine human rights issue.

I agree. Thank you, Mrs. Harper.

I’m always grateful for sources of news beyond the mainstream. The more the merrier when it comes to media, I say, and somehow, by checking all the sources, we *may* get a true sense of what is going on.

In any event, check out LifeSite’s new look.

Vote no here, in this CBC online poll.

A good summary by a Catholic scholar (as opposed to an agnostic reporter). Because there is a difference.

It’s good to read articles like this one, to get a sense of the sentiments of doctors who do abortions, if for no other reason. They see themselves as super heroes, donning capes in hospital corridors (and killing babies in a single bound). Their patients thank them, with tears in their eyes…

The whole article bothered me, from begining to end. That said, the part that bothered me most was the abortion doctor who tells his patients “We’ll get through this together.” Really? Because the doctor is only there for the duration of the abortion–not for the rest of the woman’s life.

As for the one abortion provider who simultaneously is looking to adopt and is worried about what to tell his adoptive child when the time comes? I’d have to say he likely doesn’t have to worry–what are the chances he’ll get a child? After all, there are so many abortions, so few adoptions.

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is shedding light on the short-sightedness of Internet software like Google Adwords: apparently, the bits and pieces are showing poor judgment in choosing which sites to place Government of Canada ads on, including a site that demeans women by showing them naked. See the article here.

Now, I am the last person who will defend posting GoC  ads on such websites. But the concern about demeaning women is a little over the top, especially coming from a Liberal MP. After all, these are the same people who think that maternal and child health in developing countries must include abortion, a mentally and physically damaging procedure. How is the commoditization of childbirth and childrearing working for us after all? Divorce rates are soaring, as are rates of paediatric mental illness and rates of weak-men-who-can’t commit and women-who-have-much-better-things-to-do-than-mothering.

It reminded me of a recent episode of House where the “good doctor” meets a starry-eyed idealist medical student (see Office Politics). Asked if she would lie to a patient to save his life she answers “Of course not!” then asked if she would lie to her grandma after receiving an ugly tea cozie for Christmas she said she would… “but that’s not the same thing!”. House replies “So you won’t lie when it matters but you will when it doesn’t. Congratulations: you’re fired!”

Apparently, demeaning women by making sure they don’t learn the nitty-gritty about abortion is fine… as long as you don’t show them naked. That would be demeaning.

Giving voice to the voiceless: A pro-life video challenge.

Apparently, so says the Internet, a couple is allowing you to vote on whether or not they should abort their child by creating a web site called Birthornot.com:

So in September, they created the website birthornot.com and have posted about their unborn baby boy, providing health updates, ultrasound pictures, and even videos. They’ve also provided readers with a choice via a poll on the upper right of the site: “Should We Give Birth or Have an Abortion?” As of publication, the “Give Birth” option leads the “Have an Abortion” 54.54% to 45.46%.

(One of the posts shows a ten minute ultrasound. Is it a pro-life ploy?)

The Internet is a strange place. And the world is full of strange people. I’m inclined to ignore such a thing, as it is the very worst of all worlds–voting on the life of this little one whose heart they ask me to watch beating.

About my previous post: I just thought it was funny that Donald Trump would want to run for president. I tried to imagine how the folks who react with something resembling apoplexy at the thought of Sarah Palin (who has been elected governor of a U.S. state) at the top of the ticket would take the news that Mr. Trump might try to spend his way into the race. And I snorted.

But it wasn’t meant to by a Serious Point, so if I left you scratching your head, just ignore the previous post and let’s move merrily along to something less irrelevant.

Oh, that post also (for some reason) generated roughly 4,000 times the usual amount of comment spam so if you have any comment on this story, add them at the bottom of this post please.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Ah, I see your point now. I was one who was left scratching my head. Got it.