ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

Disney in the background

by 2 Comments

Having an endless stream of photos to edit these days, I often plop my pre-schooler in front of a Disney movie for a stead. (I know; I’m a horrible mother.) Colour adjusting away in my basement office-slash-playroom (see, not such a horrible mother), I get to enjoy those easy-to-follow story lines.

We’re on Pocahontas right now (and renting a different one every week). We just got through a Mulan phase, which was preceded by The Hunchback of Notre Dame. At the risk of being told I too am reminded of the pro-life, pro-choice dialogue everywhere (and I’d be in great company), well, they all remind me of the pro-life, pro-choice dialogue.

Mulan conceals her female identity to fight in the Imperial Chinese army and heads the defeat of the Huns, saving China. When it is discovered that she is infact not a man, she goes from hero to zero. Regardless of her accomplishments, the stigma of being a woman is her greatest obstacle. Just as ‘unwanted’ fetuses are stigmatized simply for what they can’t help being.

In The Hunchback, Quasimodo is a malformed man persuaded from infancy that he was among the unwanted of society. For his sake and that of others, he was better off secluded in a bell tower where no one would have to gaze upon his hideousness. Sounds like those who preach that an ‘unwanted’ child is better off never being born.

In Pocahontas, the English refer to the natives as savages, chanting that they are “barely even human,” and asking “do they even breathe?” No need to connect the dots there.

Across the board in this magical world of Disney, the underdog prevails and a valuable lesson is learned by all. You know; happily ever after.

So are we really that blind? Not that I think we should make an animated film about the plight of the unborn child, but is our society not simply allowing the most basic of human lessons to go unlearned? Or is it that, the more civilized we become, the more helpless our victims have to be? You see, these victims now, they can’t even speak up for themselves.

In the meantime…

by 2 Comments

My “aggravating factor” is getting bigger by the day. At 14 weeks I will soon switch to maternity garments, also known as tepees. Except that this time, instead of overpriced jeans and t-shirts tepees, I get to go on a shopping spree for business attire tepees. See, I am now a working woman, hear me roar. (Then catch my fancy pumps in a sidewalk crack and sprain my ankle. Or eat my sushi on a freshly painted bench. Yep, that’s me, classy all the way.)

The morning [afternoon-evening-night] sickness has mostly subsided thanks to a $200-a-month Diclectin habit, and has been largely replaced by an overwhelming urge to run to Costco and buy a sea container of fresh berries with a cubic ton of rice pudding. (Mmmm, rice pudding and fresh berries: one of the things that does not remind me of the pro-life / pro-choice dialogue).

In any case, I learned an interesting kernel of information yesterday at the pay office. Employees of the Public Service qualify for maternity leave benefits after 6 months of full-time work. I’m sure there’s a catch somewhere (like turning-in your newborn upon it’s 8th birthday to the salt mines) but I will have been working 6 months, hear this, 10 days before my due-date. Isn’t that hilarious? But even more hilarious is my husband’s commitment to bring me to work on a gurney to complete the 6 months requirement. If I give birth early — hopefully on a weekend — we hope that a strategically placed pillow will do the trick. A friend asked me if this was ethical, to which I replied: “I got a Master’s degree in ethics, therefore everything I do is ethical.” Hey, don’t shoot me: that’s how it seems to work in academia. If you doubt it, go and read anything written by Princeton’s Peter Signer or Oxford’s Julian Savulescu.

So for once, I’ll be hoping for a late delivery. The odds aren’t great: out of five, the three girls (who are indeed everything nice) were born early and the two boys (no comments) were late. But if you want to start a pool, feel free to send your donations to the pro-life organization of your choice.

What were they trying to save?

by 1 Comment

Apparently, there’s nothing like the government pulling the rug out from under you for getting good press.

Another article that favours Bill C-484. Here’s a good quote where about how doctors tried to save the “aggravating factor,” known in popular parlance as a baby.

They spent four hours at the hospital trying to save the baby,” said Aydin Cocelli, Ms. Sesen’s brother-in-law. “If it wasn’t a baby, then why were they trying to save her?”

The guppiness factor and Bill C-484

by 3 Comments

Naomi Lakritz of the Calgary Herald has written an excellent piece about clarity, abortion and Bill C-484.

My favourite line:

It is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of English that this bill is not about abortion. Notice the key words “criminally assault,” “wants and loves,” and “against her will.” That does not describe the pregnant woman rifling through the phone book in search of an address for the nearest abortion provider.

And my second-favourite line:

Next, politicians and abortion rights groups have to stop pretending that a fetus is not fully human because it can’t survive on its own. If it weren’t fully human, there wouldn’t be all this debate. We do not hold debates about the degree of guppiness of unborn guppies, do we? And if a fetus cannot survive on its own, neither can an infant or a toddler. Are they any less human?

Reading this also caused me to stop and realize that I am way too cautious on the topic of abortion. Yes, you heard me, too cautious. Because I’ve never seen any Canadian political leader do or say anything reasonable on abortion or defending unborn babies, I stopped thinking they ever could. Thanks to columns like this, I am reminded to demand nothing less. (But hey, a girl has to keep her sanity. Low expectations means that even politicians, from time to time, exceed ’em.)

Quote of the day

by Leave a Comment

On a truck containing “carbon dioxide”:

“This vehicle stops at railway crossings. Only in Quebec.”

Because it is common knowledge that only in Quebec do locomotives crashing into tank trucks cause grave accidents possibly endangering lives. Or are Quebec locomotive drivers more likely to accelerate when commercial vehicles cross the tracks?

Really, it’s the whole legalistic shtick that cranks me up. We can blow up neighborhoods everywhere in Canada but only Quebec requires us to stop at railway crossings. And we are law abiding corporate citizens.

It reminds me — somehow — of what passes as dialogue between pro-abortion and pro-life where the pro-lifer goes “abortion ends a human life; the fetus can feel the pain of abortion” and the pro-abortion replies “the Morgentaler and Daigle decisions by the Supreme Court have both clearly stated that fetal rights do not exist in Canada and therefore the fetus is not alive and cannot feel pain.” Yes. And the Emperor is fully clothed. By decree, I know.

____________________________

Andrea, warmly: Véronique, you make me laugh. What doesn’t remind you of the pro-life, pro-choice dialogue?

____________________________

Tanya adds: I do love how your mind works.

Going crazy in the UK

by 3 Comments

Wow:

LONDON, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Crisis pregnancy centres, as well as doctors, nurses and midwives, may be subject to prosecution and a two-year jail sentence if they convince a woman to forego an abortion. Under a proposed amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, those groups advertising services to pregnant women who provide “false information” or even information that is “factually correct” that convinces a woman to change her mind about abortion, will have committed an offense.

Tabled by one of David Cameron’s Tory MPs, John Bercow, the amendment says, “It shall be an offence to deliberately mislead through advertising in relation to the termination of pregnancy and alternatives thereto.” Bercow has recently gone on record in support of an effort to bring explicit “sex-education” to six-year-old children in mandatory school curriculums.

The amendment continues, “Any person, association or body corporate shall be guilty of an offence” if they provide “material which … contains false information and is untruthful … or in its overall presentation deceives or is in any way likely to deceive the average person…even if the information is factually correct”. 

An offense will have been committed if the information given “causes or is likely to cause the average pregnant woman to take a decision in relation to the termination of her pregnancy she would not have taken otherwise.”

This can’t be true, can it?

Not very secure at all

by 1 Comment

If their ideology can’t withstand people thinking about what that ideology actually involves, how secure are they in their position?

Ken Epp, writing about Bill C-484 here. The ideologically strident are aware that the current pro-choice status quo rests on not thinking about “the abortion situation” too much (and constantly putting things like “unborn victims” in quotation marks, as if it were a laughable possibility rather than reality.) 

This is why all the screaming begins for bills that don’t even pertain directly to abortion. How secure is their position? Not very.

Bill C-484, RIP

by 2 Comments

Bill C-484 was never my favourite piece of legislation. It wasn’t pro-life, and man oh man, judging by the outcry on the pro-abortion side, it certainly wasn’t their cup of tea either. I suppose I enjoyed the fact that even in wanted pregnancies, the pro-abortion side was guarding against what they perceived to be a slippery slope–that somehow, if in wanted pregnancies killing a baby could amount to a crime, that might spill over into people’s subconscious for the abortion debate. In any event, Bill C-484 is no more. I think Harper did the right thing, telling Minister Nicholson to have that press conference, especially given that Dion was asking for his position on abortion. It’s off the table now–a good tactical move for any politician going into an election. Which I now, thanks to this move, fully believe we are.

Now how he did it, that irks me. Ken Epp’s office was not informed. I understand Epp is not running for office again. I understand therefore, that Harper thinks he doesn’t need to care. Here’s why he should have. Irrespective of how I felt about Bill C-484, there were those who supported Epp passionately, and saw it as a pro-life bill, or at least a small statement that social conservatives could support. Not telling Epp now means at best begrudging support from that crowd. What Harper did was fine. How he did it wasn’t. A tactical shift doesn’t have to be dirty. 

That’s where Harper should be more careful. There are many people out there who couldn’t give a hoot for “politics,” but do look to substance and conduct. And why shouldn’t they? They don’t live in this special silo called Ottawa. Don’t they count for something?

_________________________

Brigitte adds: Ken Epp says he won’t withdraw his bill. Good for him. I have zero doubt it will die on its own some day soon, but hey. There’s only so much any individual MP can do, and Mr. Epp is doing all he can.

Meta