ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

What does this say about our priorities?

by Leave a Comment

Barbara Kay in the Post is returning to one of her favourite themes: the inequity to men built into the mechanisms that award and enforce child custody. Keep in mind that this is a conservative-ish pundit writing in a conservative-ish newspaper. Lamenting the unfairness confronted by men has come to be the libertarian-right’s answer to mainstream feminism – superficially speaking truth to power, but really just going over the same talking points and not convincing anybody who didn’t already agree with you.

You know what would be really brave? Writing an editorial telling people that if they want what’s best for their kids, they’ll find a way to stay together and make it work. Yes, fathers are often treated poorly by the courts; yes, children need good relationships with both of their parents; yes, there are incentives that reward false accusations of abuse; yes, some women abuse the system. But better and fairer divorce is a pretty pathetic solution to this pervasive mess. Look, I’m all in favour of doctors developing better ways to treat bullet wounds. But a civilized society puts the emphasis on preventing people from getting shot in the first place, not just providing excellent care once they’re already wounded.

Challenging the debate

by Leave a Comment

An interesting opinion in today’s Ottawa Citizen. The author is admittedly pro-choice, believing that abortion must remain a question of individual conscience, but comes swinging against Morgentaler’s Order of Canada nonetheless. I would love to hear more discussions like this one, where the outcome of the debate — should Morgentaler have been nominated? — does not hinge on one’s moral position on abortion. Morgentaler’s nomination is wrong for many more reasons than his morals (or lack thereof).

That being said, I must still register my disagreement with the author’s statement that a fetus’ moral status can be circumscribed by its inability to value its own life. I recently had to take my dog to the veterinarian to be euthanised, a decision I don’t wish on anybody. My oldest daughter was tearfully telling me, a couple of days later, how heart-breaking it was to see the dog go in the car like it was just another car ride, and had he known, etc. Warnings about the uselessness of anthropomorphizing the dog went into deaf ears. The dog didn’t understand where he went — or why — and while to Liesl this was heart-breaking, I found it somewhat comforting. Some years ago I read Sister Helen Prejean’s Dead Man Walking and I cannot yet wrap my head around the expectancy of death, particularly when it comes at the hands of another. Assuredly, the ability to value one’s own life makes looking forward to one’s own death with more poignancy or fear. Similarly, we could say that people who take their own lives do so at the end of a tragic road of self-devaluation. However, I do not think that we can so easily equate moral status with self-valuation. Because, if you will allow me a moment of very bad taste, I’m not sure my 2-year-old son is yet able to value his own life. In fact, according to the decibel register at my house lately, he would convince anybody that his life is very miserable. Still, if I took his life, I would not only be a criminal in the eyes of the law but a very sick or rotten individual in the eyes of everybody else. In a nutshell, the ability to value one’s own life may be enough to abortion supporters but it doesn’t explain why it no longer matters after the child is born.

__________________________________

Rebecca adds: To take Véronique’s point further: at the moment, we (as a society) do not believe that the elderly infirm can be killed because they may not be aware of their own existence and consciousness, nor do we believe this about people of any age suffering brain damage that impairs their consciousness. There are alarming signs that this may be changing, though, thanks to the valiant efforts of Peter Singer and his fellow travellers.

Not so fast, Rabbi

by Leave a Comment

A Saskatchewan rabbi criticizes a Catholic bishop who is protesting Morgentaler’s Order of Canada medal.  Here is the full text of the news article:

Saskatoon’s Roman Catholic bishop is calling on followers to protest the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortion-rights crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler earlier this month. However, Bishop Albert LeGatt’s initiative is being criticized by a rabbi who says Dr. Morgentaler has done more for women’s rights than the Catholic Church. Saskatoon Rabbi emeritus Roger Pavey of the liberal congregation Agudas Israel said Bishop LeGatt was misguided, adding that even Orthodox Judaism considered abortion acceptable in some cases.

First, it is facile and offensive to suggest that Morgentaler has done more for women’s rights than the Catholic Church.  It reflects naked hostility to Catholicism that is unbecoming in a senior clergyman, profound bias, or ignorance of recent history, or most likely some blend of the three.  I’ll simply point out that given what we know about abortion and depression, breast cancer, and problems with subsequent pregnancies, Morgentaler has caused direct harm to many women quite apart from the actual damage women sustain when choosing to terminate a pregnancy.  The Catholic Church, like all massive and long-lived institutions, is imperfect, but in recognizing the sanctity of motherhood and encouraging women and men to form lifelong marriages, among others, it has certainly added to the net happiness of women in the world.

Next point: Rabbi Pavey points out that “even Orthodox Judaism” permits abortion in some circumstances.  This is absolutely true.  Rabbi Pavey assuredly knows, though, that those circumstances are very narrow, and in fact bear no resemblance to the circumstances in which Morgentaler has performed abortions.  Jewish law permits (and in some cases requires) abortion if continuing a pregnancy would kill the mother.  Note, please, that this is a vanishingly rare situation in 21st century Canada.  It is also noteworthy that there is no “mental health” exemption, which has been used to such mischief in some jurisdictions; since depression during and after pregnancy are largely treatable, the vast majority of Jewish legal authorities do not consider mental distress at an unwanted pregnancy to be a reason to abort. 

There are also abundant sources indicating that, as a developing life, a fetus has great value and sanctity – but not quite as much as an existing life, so that when there is a mortal conflict between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, we must choose the mother.  By the time either the head or the majority of the body has emerged from the womb, though, the baby has equal status as the mother, and it is forbidden to choose between them – no partial birth abortions permitted, in other words.  Also significant is that the conflict between the life of the fetus and an existing life applies only to the mother, ie the life that would be directly threatened if the pregnancy continued; destroying a fetus to save a third life, or many other lives, is also forbidden.

Here we get to the real intellectual dishonesty of Rabbi Pavey’s words.  Pavey is the Rabbi Emeritus of a Conservative congregation in Saskatoon.  Conservative Judaism, like Orthodox Judaism, believes in the binding and eternal nature of the covenant between God and the Jews.  Unlike Orthodox Judaism, which believes (to reduce a complicated issue to one phrase) that Jewish law is fixed, and can be applied to new situations but must not be adapted, Conservative Judaism believes that the component of the law that is subject to human interpretation can and must evolve as the understanding, wisdom and knowledge of humans evolve.  Nonetheless, Conservative Judaism recognizes that not all abortions are permitted by Jewish law.  The official position of Conservative Judaism on the politics of abortion is to oppose any law that might prevent abortions in the (extremely narrow set of) circumstances in which it is permitted by Jewish law.

Abortion to save the life of the mother has been permitted in Canada throughout Morgentaler’s career.  The slightly more lax circumstances in which Conservative Jewish law finds abortion acceptable (abortion to prevent serious injury to the mother, or severe mental anguish) have also been accommodated in practice in Canada throughout Morgentaler’s career.  Abortions that are permitted within Jewish law, in other words, already were permitted within Canadian law, and this has nothing to do with Morgentaler.  On the contrary, the very essence of Morgentaler was to shatter this status quo in favour of abortion at any time, for any woman, for any reason, and ideally at the taxpayer’s expense.  And he was most successful.

To discard a human life in a cavalier manner is profoundly contrary to the Jewish tradition, law and ethos.  To oppose laws that restrict abortion on the grounds that such laws might infringe upon the (incredibly rare) situations in which Jewish law permits abortion – the official position of Conservative Judaism – strikes me as extreme, unnuanced, but logically coherent.  To celebrate a man who devoted his life to making life disposable – the most sacred earthly thing in Judaism, such that we are permitted to break almost any other law in order to save a life – is reprehensible, and deeply unJewish.

Rabbi Pavey undoubtedly knows the position of his own movement on abortion.  He almost certainly knows that Orthodox Judaism (and until this century all of Judaism) sees abortion as a last resort, a tragic measure to be taken only to save the life of the mother.  I don’t know what he is trying to gain by this statement, but he has managed to fit contempt for women, Jewish law and tradition, both Orthodox and Conservative, and Catholicism, all into a couple of sentences.  There are better ways he could be using his time – teaching Jews and non-Jews alike that our religion holds all life to be sacred, even a developing life in the womb. How about that?

Yeah, good question

by Leave a Comment

An interesting question over at LifeSiteNews: Why is the pro-life movement so Christian, and should it be? I invite you to read the piece for yourself – personally, I found the opening question fascinating. What came after the third paragraph was random and not nearly as logically tight as it should have been, but hey. [I never said I was easy to please.]

My short answer to “Why aren’t there more non-Christians in the pro-life movement?” is this: Because some Christians can be real off-putting. Especially the ones who won’t shut up about religion even when surrounded by ostensibly non-religious people. There are people I actively avoid because of that, even though they know (I can be very clear when I want to) I do not wish to hear about Jesus and how much they love Him.

I don’t mean disrespect; quite the opposite. I want everybody to respect everybody else’s preference in that regard. Especially when discussing issues that aren’t necessarily religious – like, yes, abortion. I know, understand, and sympathize with the view that says life is a gift from God and we, simple humans, shouldn’t be allowed to mess with it. It’s a strong argument against abortion (and euthanasia, and stem-cell research, etc.) but it’s not the only one.  

One of the reasons I agreed to join PWPL was Andrea’s insistence that it be non-religious. As she says, “ProWomanProLife believes abortion is a human, social issue, not a religious or faith matter, whereby women and men of any faith or no faith at all can stand up in support of women’s rights and life, at the same time.” 

That the pro-life movement should be overwhelmingly Christian due to the overwhelming presence of Christians in its ranks is one thing. It’s quite another to be so Christian as to cause non-Christians (or non-religious) people to refrain from getting involved. The line between the two is a fine one. But that doesn’t mean it should be crossed.

____________________________

Andrea adds: I read the piece, and thought there was a lot of meat there, lots to think about. That we should eradicate Christians from this struggle, as from any struggle, would be a big mistake. Our society is close (if not already there) to viewing religious folks as irrational, in every case. That’s just wrong.

I don’t believe abortion is a Christian religious issue: ie. You don’t need to be a Christ-follower to see what Christian pro-lifers see. But Christian beliefs, or call them Judeo-Christian values, are absolutely essential to this debate: Those are the values that teach us to value human life, just because.

First time you hit on a pro-abortion person who is honest enough to admit they know that there is a person there, but don’t care and think that taking that life ought to be a choice anyway–that’s where the rubber hits the road so to speak. When the abortionist analyses the “products of conception” and pieces the body back together to be sure that all those said products have been removed from the uterus, he knows he is faced with a person, a life.

The author is wrong on one thing: There is at least one famous pro-abortion person who became pro-life prior to any kind of religious conversion. That’s Bernard Nathanson–the founder of the largest abortion clinic in the United States. Read his bio, it’s fascinating. And disturbing. Perhaps becoming pro-life led him to become Christian, which he did, afterwards. But he became pro-life first. Your average Christian will say God can use any one of us, and that He works in ways we don’t understand. Any given day, I’d say that is true, for sure.

Over before it began

by Leave a Comment

By now you’ve all read Andrew Coyne on the abortion debate. Good piece and I appreciate it. I’m all for a debate. “The debate is over” is a pretty constant refrain amongst abortion supporters. Translation: “I personally enjoy–and agree with–the status quo.”

When are issues truly “over”? Perhaps we can declare certain issues to be decided and done-like-dinner with the benefit of hindsight–I’m talking the benefit of decades, maybe a century. But nowadays we seek resolution within 22 minute sitcoms and anything longer is protracted, unwieldy, divisive–or “over.”

Now reopening what was never actually broached would be great. But it’s not the debate I look forward to. It is the moment when we all unify in our civilized society to understand that killing babies in the womb doesn’t solve our problems. Reopening the debate is certainly a step in the right direction, don’t get me wrong. But it’s certainly not a pro-life thing to do or say.  The United Kingdom–they debated indeed, and couldn’t manage to limit the killing to a point when we’re sure the child isn’t fully sentient and doesn’t experience pain (their abortion limit is 24 weeks, some fetal pain experts argue a baby suffers his or her own death at 20. I’m not a fetal pain expert, and that’s not my point.)

So what is my point this cranky Wednesday? My point is this: The debate is not the point. It’s killing babies in the womb (abortion) that’s the point. I will never agree that killing babies in the womb is a solution. So as long as I’m living, there will be at least one girl to counter this here current status quo. There are of course, many more like me.  That means an ongoing debate, and one that one round of legislation couldn’t possibly solve. Get ready. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Well, then, turn the thing off

by Leave a Comment

Yet another reason not to turn the television on:

According to a new study, background TV that’s prevalent in many homes may be detrimental to children’s development – even when they aren’t paying attention. The constant stream of sounds and images disrupt children’s imaginary games with trucks or dolls, and hinder their ability to focus.

I used to have the TV on all day, on some all-news channel or other, just because. (I guess I thought I’d miss something otherwise – pfui.) Then we’d sit down at night flipping channels and complaining that there was never anything good on. So one day we snapped and cancelled our cable service. We don’t miss it. And we’re saving a ton of money…

So. If you’ve got young kids in the house and aren’t watching anything anyway, why have it on?

Oh to be more like Dilbert

by Leave a Comment

Lots and lots of ink spilled on women, jobs, mothering, how, when and who… This snappy piece highlights those issues again. But most interesting to me was the notion that there is an academic elite advocating for mothers in the workforce because their jobs are so darn interesting, never considering that only a thin slice of women (and probably men) have the luxury of working in fields of interest that are intrinsically rewarding, and that lead us to feel “important” by virtue of what we do:

Not that being an academic isn’t a hell of a lot of fun; in fact, its very pleasantness contributes to a bias peculiar to members of the thinktankerati. So argues Neil Gilbert, a renowned Berkeley sociologist, in A Mother’s Work: How Feminism, the Market and Policy Shape Family Life. According to Gilbert, the debate over the value of women’s work has been framed by those with a too-rosy view of employment,

‘mainly because the vast majority of those who publicly talk, think, and write about questions of gender equality, motherhood, and work in modern society are people who talk, think, and write for a living. And they tend to associate with other people who, like themselves, do not have “real” jobs—professors, journalists, authors, artists, politicos, pundits, foundation program officers, think-tank scholars, and media personalities.

Many of them can set their own hours, choose their own workspace, get paid for thinking about issues that interest them, and, as a bonus, get to feel, by virtue of their career, important in the world. The professor admits that his own job in “university teaching is by and large divorced from the normal discipline of everyday life in the marketplace. It bears only the faintest resemblance to most work in the real world.” In other words, for the “occupational elite” (as Gilbert calls this group), unlike for most people, going to work is not a drag.’

Next best part highlights the wonders of gender equity in Sweden:

Oh, if America could only be like Sweden—such a humane society, with its free day care for working mothers and its government subsidies of up to $11,900 per child per year. The problem? One hates to be Mrs. Red-State Republican Bringdown, but yes … the taxes. Currently, the top marginal income-tax rate in Sweden is nearly 60 percent (down from its peak in 1979 of 87 percent). Government spending amounts to more than half of Sweden’s GDP. (And it doesn’t all go to children, given Sweden’s low fertility rate.) On the upside, government spending creates jobs: from 1970 to 1990, a whopping 75 percent of Swedish jobs created were in the public sector … providing social welfare services … almost all of which were filled by women. Uh-oh. In short, as Gilbert points out, because of the 40 percent tax rate on her husband’s job, a new mother may be forced to take that second, highly taxed job to supplement the family’s finances; in other words, she leaves her toddlers behind from eight to five (in that convenient universal day care) so she can go take care of other people’s toddlers or empty the bedpans of elderly strangers.

This discussion about mothering ain’t going to end anytime soon, and I believe women ought to do what they think is best. But are they? For my part, I’m just glad to be part of something called “the thinktankerati.” It’s high time someone noticed just how glam my job is.  

____________________________

Tanya adds: Most women I know who return to work after maternity and parental leave benefits have run out do so for one reason: money. Though there are some who love their careers, and others who just want to get out of the house, most would ultimately want to stay home and raise their children.

There’s the single mother who has little choice in the matter. My mother, for example, raised three kids on her own. Staying home with us was not a viable option.

Then there’s the mortgage and the two cars, the annual vacation and the on-trend wardrobe. Most women want some of these things, and some want them all. But why? Is it because of society’s expectations, or from a sincere life’s desire? Is it the woman that wants these things, or her spouse’s expectations of her? And what level of priority do these things hold? What order should women’s priorities be in?

Amazing that we are still asking these same questions 40 or so years after the women’s lib movement, don’t you think?

Meta