Rebecca Walberg and myself on abortion and maternal health in the National Post today.

My main point is that there is a fair amount of ideology in the maternal health debate and au contraire to what the maintream media is pushing, blame for the useless politicking lies at the feet of pro-abortion activists who would rather throw out a maternal health mandate than see one go forward without abortion included.

We’ve been posting recently about what it means to be feminist, and ultimately, I believe the fundamental ideology is concerned with the advancement of the status of women. That can be defined more specifically by various feminist sects who may or may not oppose one another. It’s concerned with gender equality (which also means different things to different people). Many pro-life groups have associated themselves with the term, recognizing the need for a differentiation from other forms of feminism and feeling that they are pursuing feminist ideals by pro-life means.

The infamous Rebecca West wrote, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is:  I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute.” It is a term that has avoided rigid definition for decades, yet Gloria Steinem told us today who can and can’t use the word.

In an interview for @katiecouric, writer and activist Gloria Steinem responded to Sarah Palin calling herself a feminist, saying, “you can’t be a feminist who says other women can’t” have an abortion.

While I don’t say women can’t have an abortion, I’d prefer if they didn’t.

Steinem said of candidates like Republican Senate nominee Carly Fiorina: “I defend their right to be wrong.”

And I yours.

How long before some anti-G8 anarchist group takes credit?

(Back to abortion and mental health, to include or not to include.)

You can say that again:

It’s very close,” said John Wright, senior vice-president of the polling firm. “This is an issue that has very strong opponents, and very strong proponents.”

For all the hoopla around the issue in favour of abortion, quite frankly, I’m surprised it isn’t more than 56 per cent in favour of funding abortions abroad. Us pro-life types must be greater in number than the media lets on.

Here’s some real handy advice: When it doubt, keep your clothes on. Life is so much simpler that way.

There are many orphans in Africa and it’s not because of a lack of access to abortion. It’s due to the AIDS epidemic and warfare, so far as I can tell. Thus far, no one has suggested we kill those kids off “to save them.” Until now:

But Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation Canada, says Harper’s decision to exclude abortion funding from his initiative will create generations of orphans in developing countries.

Fan-Tas-Tic. Remind me. How is it these people enjoy mainstream media support, again?

Thanks to Melissa for sending this story:

(CNN) — South African Dr. Sonnet Ehlers was on call one night four decades ago when a devastated rape victim walked in. Her eyes were lifeless; she was like a breathing corpse.

“She looked at me and said, ‘If only I had teeth down there,'” recalled Ehlers, who was a 20-year-old medical researcher at the time. “I promised her I’d do something to help people like her one day.”

Forty years later, Rape-aXe was born.

Ehlers is distributing the female condoms in the various South African cities where the World Cup soccer games are taking place.

The woman inserts the latex condom like a tampon. Jagged rows of teeth-like hooks line its inside and attach on a man’s penis during penetration, Ehlers said.

Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it — a procedure Ehlers hopes will be done with authorities on standby to make an arrest.

“It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it’s on,” she said. “If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter… however, it doesn’t break the skin, and there’s no danger of fluid exposure.”

OK, so it does not prevent a rape. It also does nothing to make women feel safer. But it would sure help a lot with identifying and punishing rapists. And what the heck, hurt them where it, er, hurts, too.

How classy:

Every child is beautiful (well, not really, but that’s the cliche, right?), and now — thanks to BeautifulPeople.com — you can up the chances of having offspring worthy of a baby modeling career. That’s right, the controversial dating site now has a forum/sperm bank where one may search for genetic material from beautiful people and beautiful people alone.

Back in the winter months, BeautifulPeople.com — a dating website that only allows attractive people to join based on the democratic vote of its members — gained its share of media attention after expelling 5,000 people after they packed on the holiday pounds. Back then, Founder Robert Hintze said, “Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model and the very concept for which BeautifulPeople.com was founded.”

Now, the site is taking further steps in the fight against unattractiveness (at least unattractiveness as gauged by people who dig conventionality) by launching a fertility introduction service that allows both members and non-members to score the stuff that dream babies are made of. According to Managing Director Greg Hodge, “There are no financial benefits for us in doing so — we are simply responding to a demand for attractive donors. Every parent would like their child to be blessed with many fine attributes, attractiveness being one of the most sought after. For a site with members who resemble Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie you can imagine the demand.”

Yes, but what if it doesn’t work? Or what if your beautiful child misbehaves anyway?

I’m not a pollster but asking if others should receive more, less or the same as you do on anything–be it abortions or ice cream–strikes me as a formula for one answer and one answer only: Why, the same! The same would be most fair.

Which is precisely what this poll shows. Thank goodness we have professionals doing this stuff.