ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

Popular viewpoints don’t need protection…

by 2 Comments

…Unpopular viewpoints do. You will never be called to stand up and defend the right to publish a new spice cookie recipe. (ooh!) Or tell someone how great they look in fuchsia.

How the University of Calgary gets off thinking they can punish students for doing, well, what students do–is beyond me.

The University of Calgary is threatening the campus pro-life group with suspension or expulsion unless they turn their GAP signs inward.

Abortion is fine by everyone in our society–so long as they never see it. For some, it is upon encountering the brutal reality of abortion visually that they realize how wrong it is.

That was my case. I was already pro-life yes, but not doing anything. A friend ignited a sense of injustice in me through her talk combined with an abortion video.

There’s lots of killing that goes on in this world, yes. Many wars are fought and they aren’t just. But injustice is particularly evident when we see a fetus being dismembered firsthand. If you can’t watch this, if you can’t look at the photo–then you can’t defend abortion.

The University of Calgary would prefer you don’t see what happens in abortion.

They say students have complained because they are offended.

Of course they are offended. I’m offended almost everytime I’m on campus. Student groups can show photos of any and all kinds: It’s only when it comes to abortion that they get kicked off campus, or told the photos are too large. Or too graphic. Or need to be turned inwards.

Speak out against the double standard. Next time could be your cause.

The UofC campus life group is going to go ahead with a GAP display on November 26 and 27.

What’s going on in Winnipeg

by 3 Comments

I don’t specifically know what’s going on in Winnipeg actually, however, Maclean’s reports that at the Conservative Party convention, delegates vote to bring back something like Bill C-484, the unborn victims of violence bill.

A more contentious proposal would add charges to anyone who kills or injures a fetus during the commission of a crime against a pregnant mother.

Be it resolved that this is neither contentious, nor particularly Conservative with a Cap C. (Bill C-484 had wide Canadian support.)

Just so we are all informed

by 6 Comments

This morning I was listening to 580 CFRA as I got ready for work. The Soundoff question was “What should the federal government do to balance the books?”

There’s a stalwart fellow who has called in before–he says defund abortion–because it would save millions of dollars.

We should indeed defund abortion. Why? Because it is a choice, and a social one at that, and I don’t want to pay for it. Furthermore, there’s that tiny issue of killing people in serene, state-sanctioned settings. That makes some of us (sticklers for detail) uncomfortable about how we define compassion in Canada.

But defunding abortion would increase government expenditures. Why? Because child birth is more costly than abortion. Because children, particularly those born to parents who consider abortion (remember, finances are a big reason for abortion) need support.

I hope that support could be a private compassion and generosity. With the system we currently have, it’s more likely going to be government. Ideally, we could have a combination of both.

Just wanted to add that to the discussion, without calling in to the radio show. And on the flip side, let me laud this fellow for never forgetting the unborn. He is nothing if not fastidious.

Where is freedom of choice when you really need it, part II

by 3 Comments

One of the best parenting tips I was ever given was to save righteous indignation for things that were truly abhorrent. If you go hysterical on your children for every piece of clothing they toss on the floor, what are you going to do when they call from prison at 16 because they got caught driving drunk without a license, I ask you? It doesn’t only make good parenting sense, it also makes good common sense. My day-job puts me at the receiving end of a lot of disgruntlement from all sorts of people. Believe me: when you start questioning someone’s moral fiber because the latest press release contained a typo or because the French translation came after the English version or because your phone call was returned the next day and not the same afternoon, it affects your credibility. Somehow.

What was I saying? Yes, righteous indignation for really bad things. Everything else can be handled in a mature, rational matter.

That’s what I thought when I read this piece and the comments page to this post.

So we live in a country that is so progressive and so in love with a “woman’s right to choose” that we can’t even discuss abortion without being labelled “anti-choice.” Our government recently thought that in order to secure re-election, it had to slam the door shut on Parliamentary debate on abortion and muzzle its cabinet. We are so darn progressive — can’t you hear my suspenders snap (that’s a French expression, se péter les bretelles, look it up) — that we can’t even handle a law on abortion thus making it legal to abort a child throughout all nine months of pregnancy while saving premature infants born as early as 23 weeks. And don’t get me started on not getting a pedicure to save a child I could still legally abort, no questions asked. But let’s not talk about all that. We’re going to get our collective nose out of joint over mothers feeding their children because *gasp* they do it with their breasts!

That’s how pro-woman we are. We institutionalize equality according to a male standard of sexual behaviour. That is, to be equal, we have to be able to have sex without having the kids. To achieve this great ideal, women have to stuff themselves with synthetic hormones, contraceptive devices and, failing that, undergo invasive surgery in the form of abortion. Then, having convinced women that they are really like guys, we will bombard them at a very young age with suggestions of proper sexual behaviour: “51 tricks that will make him jump for joy,” “Release your inner vixen” and “How Hally got her bikini body back only 3 months post-partum.” (3 months post-partum I’m still thinking up an action plan for getting out of my PJs).  And that’s saying nothing about fashion images that show just about every inch of skin except the nipple. Which is really too bad for the children who depend on the poor nipple for their physical or emotional sustenance. Well, grow up kids! Society needs that nipple for titillation and had you stuck with the bottle, there would be no problem. Forget those pesky health advocates who suggest that the nipple is put to better use feeding the kids than entertaining the adults.

All it underscores is the vast hypocrisy of our society’s liberal, pro-choice rethoric. We are not really pro-choice, we are pro-Me. Me support your choice to whatever as long as it doesn’t affect Me. That’s why Me supports abortion as long as we don’t talk about it publicly. And Me support your choice to breastfeed as long as Me doesn’t have to look at a working boob (as opposed to the decorative variety which is usually bouncier and better-looking).

My point is not to start a flame war on breastfeeding in public but to question the hegemony — and hypocrisy — of choice and equality. The biological purpose of breasts is to feed children just as the biological purpose of sex is to conceive them. How can we pretend to have reached equality when we deny the biological dimension of womanhood? As for making breastfeeding into a moral issue, as I said, righteous indignation for things that are righteously abhorrent…

_________________________

Brigitte disagrees: Well, in part anyway. Specifically, about whether it should be a big deal to breastfeed in public. There are ways of doing it that aren’t as in-your-face as others, but some people insist on thrusting their private parts in your face regardless, and I find that unbecoming. In this as in many other things, it’s all in how it’s done: I understand that small breastfed babies do not always send their moms advance notice of when they’ll be hungry. And that when they are hungry they’re hungry right now!!! But that shouldn’t be an excuse to let it all hang out. Yes, it’s a small thing. But small things say a lot more about a person than we sometimes think.

________________________

Véronique says: Don’t get me wrong: there is still an argument to be made about whether it should be a big deal to breastfeed in public and how. I once had a 18-month-old nursling who would start howling as soon as we stepped into a restaurant because he knew I would nurse him right away to shut him up. I didn’t like feeling like a self-serve and I like to teach my children some self-control, yes, starting at 18 months. So I stopped and got nasty looks of a different kind for a while until the baby got the message (nobody likes a screaming toddler in a restaurant more than a nursing one, believe me). I once saw a nursing mother at a public pool with her one-piece pulled down to nurse and I thought that a towel wouldn’t have been out of place.

That being said, it’s the whole “moral argument” that gets me going. Appropriate or not, sure. Let’s talk. Moral or not… Let’s not forget that we live in a country where you can abort human babies in the name of equality. If that’s our standard of morality, then the least we can do is to leave the poor nursing mothers alone.

We’ve got the power?

by Leave a Comment

BIRT “the behavior of men is simply a response to the changing behavior of women.” Kay Hymowitz in the New York Post, here.

What I relate to most in the article is the lack of dating norms. If first date activities range between sex and supper, there’s an immediate disconnect while each party figures out where the other stands. (Certainly, in moments, it’s easy enough. Like the time the fellow just up and asked–now how do I feel about one night stands? Hmmmm. Was that a practical or a theoretical question? …Cheque, please…)

“Papa don’t preach”–but mama’s got a whole stack of rules

by 1 Comment

Madonna has twelve inane conditions for the father of her kids in order that he might see them, now that they’ve split. A friend sends me this link with the thought that for some women abortion must always be an option–‘her body, her choice,’ following this, once they have children, the kids also remain part of her body and her choices–she owns and controls them. “At bedtime, Guy should read [the older son] the books Madonna wrote”? Would certainly help if she wasn’t also an egomaniac.

________________________

Véronique adds: You’d think that with everything we now know about the effects of divorce on children, parents would at least make an effort to mitigate them, if not avoid them altogether.

This has all the makings of a long, drawn-out, custody dispute. Lots of money. Brains? Not so much. I cannot understand the kind of deep-set self-centeredness that would lead a parent (or two of them) to drag children through this. I just can’t.

This is getting weird

by Leave a Comment

We’re starting to quote Camille Paglia approvingly altogether too often in these parts. But golly, she has another neat piece. Which includes this little gem:

I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is — and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns — that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

[h/t Five Feet of Fury]

Good thing Obama won

by 3 Comments

No, seriously. This column by Joseph Ben-Ami highlights the mismanagement of the McCain campaign (which had nothing to do with Sarah Palin).

How about the inconsistent, and at times, incoherent messaging of the McCain team throughout the campaign? Did it really take Joe the Plumber to point out that the Obama tax plan was blatantly redistributionist? And when that issue was working to Senator McCain’s advantage, why did the campaign release new ads in the final week on – wait for it – the environment? Did McCain strategists really believe that winning over Sierra Club or Greenpeace members at the last minute would put them over the top?

The leaks–Sarah Palin went out herself to expensive stores and purchased all those clothes, for example–they sound like lies to me. Post losing the election, if the McCain camp is better prepared to whinge, rather than grapple with the issues they failed to address–well then. Obama deserves the presidency–he won it fair and square.

__________________________

Rebecca adds: If the McCain campaign had directed half of the energy they’ve expended throwing Sarah Palin under the bus toward actually attacking Obama (you know, their opponent, as compared to their teammate, a subtle distinction to be sure) they might have won. So, asking Obama why the profoundly racist and hatemongering Rev. Wright enjoyed his support for two decades is off limits, but sniping that Palin answered her hotel room door once wearing a bathrobe is exactly how the campaign should be conducting itself?

Two myths down

by 2 Comments

A fascinating column in the New York Times (yes, you read that right), about oxytocin and attachment theory. Not that we can explain everything using a simple hormone. But there is a lot of truth to this stuff. Especially:

Over the past few decades federal and state governments have spent billions of dollars trying to improve high schools. Much of the effort has gone into trying to improve individual math and reading scores. But the effects have been modest and up to 30 percent of students drop out — a social catastrophe.

The dropout rates are astronomical because humans are not machines into which you can input data. They require emotion to process information. You take kids who didn’t benefit from stable, nurturing parental care and who have not learned how to form human attachments, and you stick them in a school that functions like a factory for information transmission, and the results are going to be horrible.

[…]

If I had $37 billion, I would focus it on the crucial node where attachment skills are formed: the parental relationship during the first few years of life.

Here you will notice he does not mention the need for more – and better – institutional daycare (pardon me, early childhood education). Most normal people know the best place for a young child is at home with his or her parents. In most cases, anyway. Yet countless women are being pressured into returning to work shortly after having a baby, and we all know how popular institutional daycare is with politicians. Problem is, none of that is good for the kids (it’s not brilliant for the moms either).

You might also notice an issue the columnist didn’t mention. Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, it’s hard to argue that legalizing abortion has given us a society where every child is “wanted”. If they were as wanted as all that, kids wouldn’t be flung into daycare before turning one, and they wouldn’t have the kinds of emotional issues David Brooks talks about (to say nothing of what Miriam Grossman has documented).

Not bad, for a NYT column.

Ideology trumps science

by Leave a Comment

You can’t expect too much from RH Reality Check–a consortium of pro-abortion types. I don’t even poke fun at them, adhering strictly to my “When it’s too easy, don’t do it” rule. But what can’t be denied this past U.S. election is that pro-life legislation through ballot initiatives did not succeed.

Something for those who are pro-life to ponder.

Meta