When I wrote my piece for the Calgary Herald, I deliberately put the name of the blog Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome in. It’s the best way to ensure the blog author takes note and responds.

And respond she did.

A couple of small things. She seems to be annoyed I didn’t link to her in the piece. That’s just silly–of course I couldn’t, because the piece was published in print. Interested parties are supposed to go and do what everyone does: Use Google.

She also seems to think I’ve misquoted her. I have not. Someone landed in her clinic who did not want an abortion and made a big fuss about it. That was the sole point. That the blog author made fun of her, that the girl left without having an abortion is entirely irrelevant. She got that far in a process she didn’t want to participate in.

That Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome disagrees with me is no great surprise. She works in an abortion clinic. Most women do feel some relief around the day of the abortion. That’s the short term effect; it took care of the pregnancy. It made it go away. I bet Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome gets thank you cards for her work. In the short-term.

That’s the thing about abortion. You feel relief that you didn’t have to have a child with the wrong person, in a wrong relationship, at the wrong time…But in the long term you look back and ask yourself: Was it really so dire? Did I have to kill? My kid would have been X years old today. And that’s where I get the feedback. The questions. The friends lying curled up in the fetal position on the bathroom floor, sobbing for a mistake that can never be undone. And it’s a mistake to have an abortion. It’s a mistake to think that life problems are solved through abortion.

Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome is 26 years old. She sounds like the type of person I’d like. After all, she’s someone who started up a blog about a topic she believes in. But she could afford to open up the dialogue and listen to the heart of what I wrote. It was something I was hoping people working in clinics would hear, and be aware of, since I fully understand that they are not wanting to do abortions on women who are unsure, or don’t want them. They should be the front lines in diverting women out the door. They should be the front lines of asking the tough questions on whether or not a woman wants to be there. They should be at the front lines of diminishing abortion numbers. I know some who actually want to do this.

No reason, then, to laugh at my article. I wrote it with a good heart, and representing the many women out there who regret their abortions, but only do so in the long term.

Earlier this month, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council met to discuss the adoption of human rights, like the rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, in order to determine what states must focus on in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals. But what right was Ontario based Dr. Kishore Singh concerned with addressing to the committee?

Sex education is a sensitive matter for all societies,” said Mr. Singh, relating that Mr. Muñoz, in his final report, had noted a “worrying lack of sustainable and comprehensive strategies” to ensure the adequate inclusion of sex education in educational and health policies and that, without accurate information, many people were exposed to abuse or risky practices, with potential consequences to their physical and physiological well-being.  The many recommendations made by the former Special Rapporteur provided a point of reference for discussions, Mr. Singh added.

[…]

The Special Rapporteur concludes his report by reiterating the necessity and the relevance of the right to comprehensive sexual education.  He presents specific recommendations for States and the international community, including:  adopting and strengthening legislation aimed at guaranteeing the right to sexual education; encouraging public policies aimed at ensuring the right to comprehensive sexual education; ensuring the inclusion of comprehensive sexual education from primary school onwards; establishing the curriculum of sexual education, providing high-quality teacher training; and encouraging the inclusion of families and civil society in curriculum design and implementation.

The idea of what constitutes appropriate sex education varies not only from nation to nation but from person to person, making the universalism of such a right impossible to establish. In the west (especially in the U.S.), parents tend to still have some degree of input on at what age and what kind of sexual education their children are exposed to, but attempting to make this information a basic human right essentially takes all personal choice and preference out of the equation. It would also annihilate respect to religious differences on the subject.

_______________________

Brigitte adds: But Jennifer, that’s exactly why they’re doing it… We just weren’t supposed to notice.

Why shouldn’t beauty queens be able to defend themselves?

Swimsuit? Check. Evening gown? Check. Gun — huh?

At first glance, the Miss Liberty America pageant looks like any other scholarship pageant going out there. However, its odd requirements — like needing to be CPR-certified, proficient with firearms and able to converse about historic American documents — make it sound more like a program for young Sarah Palins-in-training or Mama Grizzlies-to-be.

And that’s something its founder, Alicia Hayes-Roberts, is perfectly OK with. “It is absolutely a beauty pageant,” she told TODAYshow.com, “filled with elite, feminine patriots.”

You go, girls!

______________________

Deborah adds: Good find! Now that’s a pageant I could win if it wasn’t for the swimsuit competition (maybe I could make up for it by shooting really well . . . in a swimsuit)! Call me a redneck, but getting to pick any handgun or rifle and getting lifetime membership to the NRA would be the greatest ever.  🙂

Oh, look! Another stupid comment!

U.S. elections went sour for Nancy Keenan.

Here she is yesterday, in a mailing to supporters urging them to get out the vote for candidates who support the right to “terminations”:

And in a message to supporters today, following a string of defeats for pro-abortion candidates:

Must have been one hell of a rough night, by the look of things.

I would very much love it if a man brought forward a human rights complaint that he is being denied an abortion. I’m pretty sure they’d hear it:

You know, I don’t really care what method they use. Executing women for “adultery” is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I know it will be controversial, but it shouldn’t be. Here’s a piece I wrote for the Calgary Herald explaining why.

Quite a touching clip on why opposition to legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia is important. I don’t actually think you have to have any faith at all to relate. In matters of life and death, on the precautionary principle alone, we should stand on the side of life because our own understanding is always limited.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0LXYsvdpUI”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0LXYsvdpUI]

When I think of Brazil and poverty, the film City of God comes to mind. Shanty towns overfilled and run by drug-lords dominate parts of Rio de Janeiro, so it will take a strong personality to cause the kind of change so desperately needed. From CNN:

(CNN) — Brazil’s new president-elect vowed to continue her predecessor’s move to fight against inequality and promote human rights and fight poverty in her victory speech Sunday night.

“My mission is to eradicate poverty,” Dilma Rousseff said after the country’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal declared her the winner in Sunday’s runoff election.

As the nation’s first woman to hold the office, Rousseff said she has a mission to fight for more gender equality in Brazil.

“I hope the fathers and mothers of little girls will look at them and say yes, women can.”

Previously a left-wing guerilla fighter, Rousseff is taking her passion (and pro-life position) to the presidential office.