ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

Defending eugenics

by 6 Comments

Note to this dude’s family members: Guard your health. If you don’t–he’ll take you on a cruise only to pitch you overboard. Something about people who are not self-sufficient requiring too much “constant care and supervision.” What a classy guy.

So in the anti-abortion advocate’s eyes, a parent’s desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality.

Um, yes, you got it. It is upstanding morality to care for the weak and disabled. 

This group “The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism” says they are “dedicated to advancing individual rights and economic freedom through Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.”

They might want to update the mission statement: “Dedicated to advancing the individual rights of healthy folks…” “economic freedom for self sufficient types” etc. I’d be happy to help them toward greater accuracy.

_________________________

Update: The words above are the “upclass” version of this. You can pretend to be erudite to conceal your contempt, or you can just make a t-shirt. (Quoting Kathy Shaidle on this one: “Stay classy, liberal America!”)

_________________________

Véronique adds: Hmmm, you know what I find “interesting”? I have recently been reading several Human Rights Tribunal proceedings through my day job. Regardless of what you think about the CHRT, all I will say is that there are some pretty messed up individuals out there. Anyway. Reading the quote from Andrea’s post reminded me of a lot of sample hate material dealt with by the tribunal. Except that you replace “severely disabled” by “blacks” or “jews” or “gays.” Now, you would never get away with that. But it is worth remembering, when arguing for “the rule of reason,” that you can make a reasonnable case for eliminating just about anyone on the planet. Well, except yourself of course. Because we all know that were everybody like me, the world would be a much better place. Lonelier too.

Update: I was looking for something on the National Post website when I stumbled upon this video http://www.nationalpost.com/multimedia/video/player.html?video=71742a12-b27c-4a66-a6e5-f49bf9e7c4da

At some point toward the end the mother comments about a letter-writer who posted a comment to the effect that had her daughter been a dog, she would have been put down by now. 

So yeah. All this to say: there are some pretty sick people ou there. And I’m not referring to Kenadie.

“The uneasy conscience of feminism”

by 3 Comments

I did not want to comment on this Camille Paglia piece until I read it in full. I’m glad I did. On top of being splendid prose, this piece is a boon to the pro-life movement. 

Let’s get straight to the part that has raised the ire of pro-lifers. Paglia says abortion is murder and then adds she fully accepts abortion. Is this shocking? Perhaps. But every woman who has had an abortion is grappling with that very sentiment. This is the essence of the debate and why pro-lifers care at all in the first place. Never to curtail anyone’s choices–but rather to identify that a person is a person, even in the womb (was tempted to say no matter how small, with apologies to Dr. Seuss) and therefore elimination is not a choice. Paglia has put on the page what every strident pro-abortion activist accepts and knows. They simply don’t say it.

Paglia speaks of “the uneasy conscience of feminism…” and I know that well. It’s that silence that descends most every time the “A word” comes up. I like to think it’s the sound of people’s conscience contorting, writhing around what they know to be true and what they’ve been told they must say. Most women will never accept that murder is their special privilege.

Abortion is “the extermination of the powerless by the powerful,” again, Paglia’s words, which I will be sure to repeat. (If you don’t think abortion is the extermination of the powerless by the powerful, you’ve not watched one in progress, and you should.) Pro-abortion types fare better in the public square if they conceal, conceal, conceal. This is why Bill C-484 had to go. Because it would have started women and men thinking, thinking, slowing realizing–what are we doing? And that is the frightening consistency of pro-abortion types: keep abortion out of the public mind, because free thought is out of bounds.

I’ll take Paglia’s words one step further: the extermination of the powerless by the powerful begins with conniving and devious so-called supporters of women’s rights–those who lie about what abortion is and then convince everyone that access to abortion is a right–hey! this isn’t evil! It’s empowering! They know what Paglia knows–and cloak the act in comfy euphemisms. They meet women in their personal deserts and offer a refreshing drink of cyanide. Only they call it Sprite and add ice and one of those fun paper umbrellas.

Though Paglia’s conclusion is repugnant to me, she is not coercing anyone to her view. She hardly could–it’s not a very good slogan–“Murdering millions–in particular those who have done absolutely nothing wrong and can’t defend themselves! Join today!”  

She says:

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

Bottom line: this kind of disquieting article does the pro-life movement a great service. 

_______________________

Véronique adds: I doubt that Camille Paglia is a closet pro-lifer. Or that she would be delighted by our endorsement. That being said, I want to say how much I liked reading her article. She takes a strong position and she defends it to its logical end without rhetoric or slogans. This is someone I feel like I could have an intelligent conversation with. On the pro-choice side. That in itself gives me hope. Not so much that I could convince her because I don’t think I could. But it gives me hope that we can engage in these issues instead of avoiding them.

Didn’t take long

by 3 Comments

Stéphane Dion warns against a Conservative hidden agenda. They never get tired of that line, do they.

__________________________

Tanya adds: Dion said, “So I want to ask him: how far is [Harper] more right-wing than Canadians?”

Like, all Canadians?  The short answer to that question is that he’s more right-wing than some and less right-wing than others.  (I never went to politics school ‘n stuff, but I think that’s why, like, democracy exists…no?)

 

My take on this is that Dion isn’t very liked.  But if he can get Liberals to hate Harper enough, they’ll come out in droves to vote.

More evidence that sex and pregnancy are indeed related

by 2 Comments

This study from the Guttmacher, says:  

Half of respondents had experienced at least one unintended pregnancy. Respondents described three categories of pleasure related to pregnancy ambivalence: active eroticization of risk, in which pregnancy fantasies heightened the charge of the sexual encounter; passive romanticization of pregnancy, in which people neither actively sought nor prevented conception; and an escapist pleasure in imagining that a pregnancy would sweep one away from hardship. All three categories were associated with misuse or nonuse of coitus-dependent methods.

Now I have not read the Guttmacher study in full. But my translation on the “scientificese” above is this: Pregnancy is linked–strongly–to sex and sometimes women get pregnant the result of having sex. Furthermore, oftentimes unintended pregnancies are not unintended at all.

You know, I don’t like the idea that everything we do, including pregnancy, ought to be fully and completely planned. All it nurtures is a sense of failure if you can’t get pregnant the very moment you so desire, and a sense of failure if you get pregnant when you did not so desire. (If life is aaaaaalllll about planning, I might add that I’m way off track as per the official Andrea Mrozek 1995 high school graduation power point. See graph four, slide 15 for more information…)

Cardinal Turcotte sends back his medal

by 3 Comments

To protest the Morgentaler award.

Turcotte explained his decision in a written statement released Thursday.

“I had accepted this honour on behalf of all those who, because of their faith in Jesus Christ, work in the social domain to serve the most disadvantaged of our society,” he wrote.

“I must admit that I had hoped that, in light of the large number of protests, the Consultative Council for the Order of Canada would revise its decision.

“Because it has not done so up to now and because silence on my part might be misinterpreted, I feel obliged in conscience to reaffirm my convictions regarding the respect for human life, from conception to death.

“We are not the masters of human life; it rests in the hands of God,” he said.

___________________________

Andrea adds: My first thought was something along the lines of “What took you so long?” But note he was hopeful that Morgentaler’s Order would be revoked, justice restored, and he could keep his. Well, good on the Cardinal, I say. Still hoping for others to do the same.

___________________________

Tanya says: There’s the expression, “Better late than never.” Then there’s the saying, “If you are hoping for change, be the change.” I still stand by the opinion that Cardinal Turcotte should have been among the first to send his medal back.

Meta