Oh dear. If this were George Bush… But when Bill Clinton makes a mistake like this, most of us just move along. Including the interviewer who, if I’m not mistaken, plays a doctor on TV. [Yes, I’m trying to be cute – it’s been a long day. I know who he is.]

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmh9p1rlkQk]

[h/t Hot Air]

____________________

Andrea adds: The interviewer addresses Clinton saying this: “as someone who has studied the issue, do you think…” Someone who has studied the issue? Study again, my friend, because this is…alarming. I actually think the interviewer looks a little disquieted: Do I stop him? Correct him? Do we pull out a chart and explain the basics? Change the topic entirely? (Anyone see the game last night?) Very funny.

____________________

Tanya says: Let’s not get Clinton to write up all the legal mumbo-jumbo regarding this issue.  “Embryos that has no chance of ever being fertilized”… why, that would be all embryos, wouldn’t it?

The engagement between Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston is off. I suppose that’s why they kept not announcing a wedding. That’s really too bad.

Is inflaming anti-Muslim sentiment worse than beheading your estranged wife?

A coalition of eight family and women’s groups are calling on the National Organization for Women to retract comments by its New York president linking the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan to a Muslim “honor killing.”

“We were so shocked by her comments,” said Laura Grube, coordinator for Child & Family Services Haven House, a coalition member.

The comments by Marcia Pappas, NOW’s state president, were insensitive and harmful to domestic violence victims, she said.

But Pappas stood her ground and said that dozens of Muslim women have written to thank her for speaking out.

“There will be no retraction,” she said.

Hassan was found beheaded Feb. 12 in the office of Bridges TV in Orchard Park. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, the chief executive officer of the television channel, is charged with her slaying.

In a statement Feb. 16, Pappas criticized the media for paying little attention to the case, which came to light the same day as the crash of Continental Flight 3407 in Clarence.

“Why is this horrendous story not all over the news?” Pappas asked in the news release.

“Is a Muslim woman’s life not worth a five-minute report? This was, apparently, a terroristic version of ‘honor killing,’ a murder rooted in cultural notions about women’s subordination to men.”

Linking the death to the couple’s religion “inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment and let the non-Muslim community off the hook for addressing the real issue—ending domestic violence,” the coalition said in a statement.

[h/t James Taranto]

Michael Ignatieff threw a party and I wasn’t invited. I wonder why?

A long yet interesting piece on breastfeeding – not against it but fairly skeptical. I especially like this bit:

So I was left feeling trapped, like many women before me, in the middle-class mother’s prison of vague discontent: surly but too privileged for pity, breast-feeding with one hand while answering the cell phone with the other, and barking at my older kids to get their own organic, 100 percent juice—the modern, multitasking mother’s version of Friedan’s “problem that has no name.”

And in this prison I would have stayed, if not for a chance sighting. One day, while nursing my baby in my pediatrician’s office, I noticed a 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association open to an article about breast-feeding: “Conclusions: There are inconsistent associations among breastfeeding, its duration, and the risk of being overweight in young children.” Inconsistent? There I was, sitting half-naked in public for the tenth time that day, the hundredth time that month, the millionth time in my life—and the associations were inconsistent? The seed was planted. That night, I did what any sleep-deprived, slightly paranoid mother of a newborn would do. I called my doctor friend for her password to an online medical library, and then sat up and read dozens of studies examining breast-feeding’s association with allergies, obesity, leukemia, mother-infant bonding, intelligence, and all the Dr. Sears highlights.

I believe each mom should make her own decisions based on what’s best for her and her family. What I don’t like, in this as in anything else aside from the obvious superiority of dark chocolate over the milk kind, is people who insist their views must be followed by all.

Oh, and this is pretty good, too:

The debate about breast-feeding takes place without any reference to its actual context in women’s lives. Breast-feeding exclusively is not like taking a prenatal vitamin. It is a serious time commitment that pretty much guarantees that you will not work in any meaningful way. Let’s say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That’s nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months. This is why, when people say that breast-feeding is “free,” I want to hit them with a two-by-four. It’s only free if a woman’s time is worth nothing.

_____________________________

Rebecca adds:

Let’s say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That’s nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months.”

Someone told me once (pre-kids) that feeding and bathing and changing one baby’s diapers takes up more than 8 hours a day.  That’s your full-time job, right there. I don’t wear a lot of “message” T-shirts, but one of my favourites says “every mother is a working mother.”

That’s also further evidence, if anybody needed it, that OctoMom is bananas.

____________________________

Tanya says: Of course this woman’s frustrated with breastfeeding. She thinks she should be able to answer her cell phone whilst nursing.

I’m called on annually to serve as the official photographer at the Breastfeeding Challenge in my area. Being part of that circle made me aware of the amount of support and resources needed for breastfeeding to be something every woman can do, if she so wishes. (You’ll notice, if you look at 2008’s results, that Quebec, Canada is the place to breastfeed.) In my area, there are breastfeeding counselors, breastfeeding clinics, breastfeeding newsletters, breastfeeding support moms (mentors within the breastfeeding support group, of course)….  At no point did I ever get the impression that it’s supposed to be easy; that it isn’t a full-time commitment.

So if you don’t feel it’s a commitment you’re able to make, then don’t do it.  There are endless other options.  But build a case against breastfeeding?  Puh-leeeze!

__________________________

Véronique adds: Typing this comment while nursing. Given that healthy children can be brought up on formula, I don’t think that the decision to breastfeed should be held as a moral absolute. That being said, I am of the “human milk for human babies” type. It just seems to make sense in the big scheme of things, regardless of academic studies and expert opinions.

What troubles me in the type of opinion expressed in that column is that it seems to gloss over the fact that parenting is made of sacrifices. You can stop  feeding if it makes you feel better. But thinking that you can (or should be able to) skirt self-sacrifice somehow is asking for a rude awakening.

Today was Tax Day. I am happy to report that my accountant’s head did not suddenly burst into flames at the sight of my paperwork. That’s very good. I like my accountant a lot. But boy, I really do hate doing my taxes. So much time and effort just to make sure I give enough money to the government…

I was all set to write a snippy little post about my experiences, and then I saw this:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMHSFPOzpc]

No, it doesn’t make me happy to pay taxes (nothing could). But it sure shuts me up.

[h/t LifeSiteNews]

Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher, who is a quadriplegic, is quoted in the Free Press as cheering Obama’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, since scientists will be able to work “free from manipulation and coercion.”

Fletcher paints opposition to stem cell research as hypocrisy:

He said anyone who is upset by stem cell research should ask themselves: if they or someone they loved had an illness that could be cured, would they turn down the cure because it came from stem cells? “I think not,” he said.”

There are a couple of serious problems with this portrayal of opposition to research that involves the destruction of embryos, and that’s without getting into the science, about which it will suffice for now to say that a number of respected scientists in the field believe embryonic stem cells to have no advantages over other forms of stem cells.

First, the hypocrisy charge. A measure of compassion is certainly owed to Fletcher, and most of us, thank heavens, will never be called upon to stick to our principles at the cost of a (tenuous) hope of a cure for such a crippling condition. Becoming an MP, and then a member of cabinet, at so young an age would be a remarkable achievement for anybody, let alone someone with such a difficult physical burden to bear, and these accomplishments are a testament to Fletcher’s mental fortitude.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this is an ugly and intellectually lazy point to argue. For those of us who believe an embryo is a human life, albeit at a very early stage of development, the difference between embryo destructive stem cell research and the organ harvesting of political prisoners that (allegedly) goes on in China is one of degree, not of kind. I would like to think that if I, or a loved one, required a heart transplant, I would not in my desperation advocate executing someone and harvesting his heart to save my life or my child’s. If I were driven by my suffering to push for such an action, I hope the broader society around me, while feeling compassion for my plight and doing everything ethical that they could to help me, wouldn’t endorse the suggestion.

The other problem is in the motives ascribed to Bush and others who didn’t sanction embryo-destructive research, thereby creating “manipulation and coercion.” Good people can disagree about the morality of stem cell research, as they can about IVF, and all the other issues related to assisted reproductive technologies. But a good faith debate isn’t possible when, as with Kathleen Parker’s distaste for “oogedy-boogedy” conservatives, pro-life advocates are assumed to be operating from an irrational, anti-scientific or superstitious worldview. Post-modern sophisticates (correctly) point out that pure objectivity is impossible, but they seem to make an exception when it comes to their own positions, which are so clearly enlightened and correct that opponents act not out of conviction or logic but out of some Snidely-Whiplash small-mindedness coupled with a fondness for fundamentalist religion.

I expect this kind of rubbishing of pro-life values from the Liberals and NDP; I expect better from Conservatives.

______________________

Andrea adds: I know people, who faced with their own suffering in disease, choose ethical solutions. One of them, Mark Pickup, has a blog that is worth checking out.

It’s a tough leap for people to feel wonder and sympathy for a mere embryo, perhaps especially because we abort 12 week old fetuses with abandon. Tough issues–ones to address with compassion to be sure. But hypocrisy charges? Uncalled for.

_______________________

Tanya adds: What is a pro-lifer? Normally, it is someone who’s opposed to embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia.

The opposite says it’s OK to abort a child with a deformity. The opposite says it’s OK euthanize someone due to undetermined and variable degrees of illness. The opposite says, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the ends justify the means.

I may be biased, but it seems as though the pro-life side values life, whereas the opposite simply has contempt for sickness, illness, and deformity. It’s all a little Orwellian.

______________________

Andrea may be biased too: but also understands that we all are–and I’m pretty open with my bias. Seems to me I pretty consistently encounter folks in favour of embryonic stem cell research, in favour of euthanasia, in favour of abortion–none of these things should be forced, of course–and they think theirs is the “unbiased” position. I raise one eyebrow at them, that’s what I do. Later, I might bite my thumb at them, in a moment of Shakespearian anger.

I’m not getting my knickers in a knot over this one.  Isn’t this just in vitro the old-fashioned way? She’s like OctoMom, but the dads are different and this was probably cheaper.

Then, surprise, surprise, Angelica decided to use her partner as an unwitting sperm donor. She says: ‘I thought he was nice-looking and would make a good dad, so I stopped taking the Pill. I just thought: “It’s my body and I want a baby, so I’ll have one.”

It’s her body. This is true. But the main point with all this pro-life stuff is that the children are distinctly not. Neither is the man. (I’m in the business of pointing out the obvious, yes.)

The important thing here is that we not be judgmental of her choices, however, and that we accept new family forms as being exactly the same as any other.

__________________________

Tanya says: This is how badly we’ve managed to confuse men.

I proudly presented him with the positive pregnancy test.
He looked stunned and said: “How did that happen?”

Many grown men actually have no idea where babies come from anymore.  They have been told for so long now that they have nothing to do with it… they’re actually starting to believe it.

This from the Globe and Mail:

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be “distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.”

Pinkie swear.