ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

Incentives for young mothers

by 3 Comments

I somehow missed this last month. A good article about life, compassion and choice:

Add incentives for religious and private-sector organizations to provide money and means for young mothers who want to raise their babies themselves, and we’re starting to get somewhere. Again, if we stipulate that abortion itself is a tragic act, wouldn’t a robust and ubiquitous network of alternatives be helpful? When you offer people good choices, bad laws become irrelevant.

Naturally I’m onside with this, since we here at PWPL are dedicated to making our current bad law/legal vaccuum irrelevant. The tricky part is how to create those incentives. Young women today know where to go for an abortion. It is so easy. Since I can’t stop them on the sidewalk (bubble zone laws and this strikes me as on the late side, anyway) what’s a girl to do?

I continue to brainstorm on that point.

As a side note, the world needs more pro-life asset managers.

Wow, Andrea, Stephen Harper listens to you!

by 2 Comments

You and, admittedly, a couple dozen million Canadians besides. The government decided not to mess with the national anthem. A couple of people are unhappy, including the senator who reportedly came up with the daffy idea. Here’s what she had to say:

If it’s been pulled, it’s an example of how much violence I think there is against women. This is such a relatively small thing to do.”

And you, Nancy Ruth of Ontario, are an example of why people don’t take feminists seriously.

_____________________

Andrea adds: “Me, and a couple dozen million Canadians.” But mostly me, I’m quite sure.

Woah, Nellie

by 1 Comment

Keep in mind live tweeting the abortion by RU-486 was supposed to normalize the procedure and make all of us feel so super duper comfortable with it.

Here, Jill Stanek, a pro-life blogger in the States chronicles the live abortion tweets. 

By the end, they’re agonizing to read, forget about actually experiencing the ordeal.

Initially I just thought the whole thing was sad but was prepared to say this woman live tweeting her abortion ain’t my target audience and let it go.

But reading Jill Stanek’s post makes the point loud and clear: if this is how an abortion-activist experiences RU-486 (she was totally non-chalant about it at the start) then how much worse for the rest of us?

Jill Stanek is right:

But the first rule of demystifying is one must herself be demystified before attempting to demystify. If not, the demystifying process may not go as anticipated, which is what happened in Jackson’s case. Only because Angie decided to live tweet her RU-486 abortion did we learn in actuality it’s a long, drawn out, painful process. For that reason I thought Angie’s exposé was a worthwhile educational experience for us all.

Educational, yes. For me too.

But what about the remaining seven cents?

by Leave a Comment

Another good article about the purported gender gap:

Take the gender wage gap. To arrive at 70.5 cents, the report compares full-time annual wages between men and women. What it doesn’t mention is that men work more hours in a year than women do. Once you adjust for that, the gap narrows to 84 cents. And when you adjust for work experience and women’s preference for jobs in the public sector and social services, the gap shrinks to 93 cents.

So my question about the remaining seven cents is only partially tongue in cheek. Does that spell discrimination? Or do women lowball their salary requirements? Just a question. (I once lowballed my salary expectations so significantly that within three months of starting I had asked for–and received–a ten per cent correction.)

I just don’t see sexism in Canada as par for the course. I do agree that the national discussion needs to shift:

The plight (and rights) of aboriginal women is a serious matter. The growing marriage gap between highly educated and less-educated women – and the hugely unequal life impact this has on their children – is another.

And of course, there’s that little question of women’s rights and abortion and the manner in which that is misrepresented in the public square…But I’m on that one.

Quelle surprise

by Leave a Comment

Oh look. More ACORN employees cleared of wrongdoing. Who would have thought?

NEW YORK – A prosecutor’s office says it has found no criminal wrongdoing on the part of three employees of the community organizers group ACORN caught on video advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend.

The news story fails to mention that the prostitute in question was ostensibly posing as a minor. Small detail, that.

O Canada

by 5 Comments

So by now we’ve all heard about the Throne Speech and a line to examine our national anthem for gender bias. Apparently at least one Senator, Nancy Ruth, is already hot on this trail.

The Opposition has been quoted as saying this is proof the Conservative government pays only lip service to gender causes, while doing nothing.

But they are wrong. Working hard on nothing of any substance is a hallmark of old-school feminists and therefore, any government, Conservative or Liberal, that wants to curry favour with feminists will quickly find themselves brandishing the most useless of causes.

Real women are out and about, busy, working. Or raising families. Or both.

Welcome to politics.

Types of ammunition

by 1 Comment

I watched Sarah Palin on Jay Leno, and I have to say, I don’t find much of what she said to be controversial. A key difference between her life and mine might be that when my dad advises me on what ammunition to use, it’s figurative, not literal. Plus I got in big trouble for writing on my hands back in the day. Other than that, tax cuts, energy security, revitalizing the American spirit? Really, who can disagree with that?

And now your kids will nag you!

by 5 Comments

(Time for Brigitte to put her crusty old goat hat on again.)

I’m not even that old yet (really, I’m not), and I remember when people thought school should teach kids things like reading, writing, geography, math, history, physics, that sort of thing. Well, pfft. That’s too dull. Now they want to teach the kids how to change the world.

Toronto District School Board students will be expected to contribute more to their communities under a new ”social justice action plan” unveiled yesterday by education director Chris Spence.

The initiative will see every school in the board take on one local and one global social justice issue — such as poverty, equity and environmentalism — in order to “create awareness of how students can be empowered through their leadership to make a difference in their world,” according to Mr. Spence.

“When I visit schools and talk to kids and staff, they’re all engaged in this kind of work. Now we’re raising the bar in terms of expectation and saying this is part of what we want to stand for as an organization,” he said in an interview with the National Post. “When you put these kinds of issues in front of kids, they will run with it and go places.”

That will make for fun dinner conversations, no?

Andrea adds: This doesn’t bother me that much when compared with other ideas the school boards have. I will add, however, that when kids decide they want to work on creating a culture of life, the school board had better fully and completely support them in this. Right? Right. Standing for life is one social justice cause of modern western nations, not the only one, to be sure, but I’m sure the school boards will want to be ahead of the curve on this.

Words matter…

by 2 Comments

…at the end of life as at the beginning. Here Margaret Somerville highlights how Quebec doctors aren’t likely to be able to debate legalized euthanasia well, since they don’t appear to know what it means:

Dr Barrette said that in caring for terminally ill people, “doctors are aware they can be charged with murder if they administer a ‘palliative sedative’ before a patient is on his or her last breath.” This is not euthanasia, although, like Dr Barrette, 49 percent of Quebec physicians recently polled mistakenly thought it was. Palliative means the sedative was necessary to relieve pain and suffering and was not given with an intention of killing the patient. That cannot result in a murder charge, or any other legal charge, unless the patient refused it.

Meta