ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

Oh, I get it!

by Leave a Comment

Ever since I saw this, I’ve been thinking more about why abstinence is a bad word. Reading this, it became pretty clear. (If you enjoyed that read, you’re in luck. Hundreds of similar articles are published every day.)

If we adults choose to live like an episode of Sex and the City, preaching abstinence to our teens seems outlandishly hypocritical. Gracious, no one wants to be a hypocrite!

That, and “do as I say – not as I do” has never been a very effective parenting technique.

_____________________________

Brigitte is laughing her little head off: My favourite part in the age-difference discussion?

Family members seem to be a popular gauge on both ends of the scale: ‘They have to be older than my younger brother,’ another woman tells me.
Of course, it also depends on whether you’re planning on doing more than sleeping with the person.  ‘I mean, is it just sex or am I going to have to have breakfast with the guy and attempt conversation?’ a young woman in her 30s asks.

But, our middle-agish woman also had a problem with this distinction. ‘Sleeping with people is a type of relationship, isn’t it?’

Yes, honey, it is.

____________________________

Andrea is also laughing:

Having said that, however, as a friend in Vancouver so aptly put it, ‘It is still a great ego boost when a guy ten years younger than you makes it quite apparent that he’s got it bad for you!’

Ain’t no “ego-boost” large enough to compensate for the lack of self-esteem that would allow a woman to think someone younger than her wanting to sleep with her constitutes a compliment. I mean, imagine that… a young testosterone-filled guy wanting to have sex. With me. Sweep me right off my feet.

Breastfeeding and intelligence

by Leave a Comment

Now, I know that this is a prolife blog and breastfeeding isn’t technically prolife material. But hey, unborn babies eventually need to be fed. The link may be tenuous but here I go.

Like everything childbirth, those who have had the great privilege of (a) giving birth, and (b) deciding how to feed their infant, know that there is no easier way to be shot at than to unravel the breast vs bottle issue. (Well, actually, prolife blogging is a pretty sure-fire way of being called names–I would link to some of them but it seems that most pro-abortion bloggers cannot criticize without a generous helping of profanities, at least those who link to us.) But back to breastfeeding. McGill researchers have just published a study linking breastfeeding to higher intelligence. Read the news release here.

Now, for the disclaimer: I have 5 children, all of them were breastfed to a certain extent. 3 of them had their first bottle by their 3rd week, one of them was supplemented with formula from birth. Some of them were weaned the hard way, some of them weaned on their own. I’ve had about every breastfeeding joy and tribulation found in books and even some not found in books. And, dare I say it, all my children are brilliant AND cute as buttons. I honestly don’t care how you fed your baby nor for how long you breastfed. I only care that you fed your baby and if not, that child welfare authorities have been notified. Okay?

Back to McGill researchers. What I find interesting is that breastfeeding has been linked to higher intelligence. Given that breastfeeding is how human babies should be fed in the big scheme of things, shouldn’t we say that breastfeeding is linked to normal intelligence and artificial feeding linked to lower intelligence? On that topic, I found this article very interesting. Warning: do not follow the link if you don’t want to be challenged on breast vs. artificial feeding or if you can’t stand a white font against light blue background.

__________________________

Andrea compliments Véronique on her amazing knack for putting together a line of almost non-sequiturs and keeping me interested and laughing in the process. And I don’t even have children to feed. But I won’t read the link because of the light blue background–and their choice of font. Terrible.  

__________________________

Rebecca’s theory on breastfeeding and IQ: the intelligence flows straight out of the maternal brain, out the mammaries, and into the baby.

__________________________

 

Patricia adds: Hear, hear, Rebecca.

I have nursed to some degree or another all five of my kids, in most cases up to about 13 months. (All of my kids seemed to have lost interest at about that stage.) Each time, the first three months have been a grueling ordeal with pain rivalling childbirth and a host of attendant complications most of which are too gruesome to relate. Over the years, I have had help from professionals, La Leche, my breastfeeding friends, etc., so mine is not a case of being uninformed or unsupported. And, finally, every time, I have wondered why I insist upon putting myself, my husband, my other kids and my baby through the process, and I’m still not 100% sure that I did any of us any favours.

I’m read the press release from the McGill study and, while I’m no expert, I was not convinced that their “control” eliminated all the biases in favour of a certain type of mother. According to the press release, the study was “randomized by taking half of the mothers and subjecting them to “an intervention that encouraged prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding” while the other half of mothers continued with their usual maternity hospital and outpatient pediatric care and follow-up. Well, what type of mother do you think was most persuaded by the intervention in support of breastfeeding? I suspect it was mothers who accept that “what is best for their child” is what is recommended by a certain kind of expert, who relies more on those experts than the experience of her mother, who has the time and support to give to the breastfeeding process, who can persist when it doesn’t go well initially, who takes advantage of lactation consultants, etc. And I wonder how often this type of mother has a certain kind of intelligence and a certain determination to interact and stimulate her child that results in that child, at age 6.5, to do well in certain measures of intelligence.

There are all kinds of reasons to breastfeed – my personal favourite is that it’s cheap. (You might think it’s free, but I have such a voracious appetite when I’m breastfeeding that I’m sure there is an added grocery cost.) When it works, it’s lovely and convenient. But then, so is snuggling up to give your baby a nice, peaceful bottle, especially if it provides you with a break from stomach-churning pain. Let’s face it, infant formula has been around for a long time and was developed for a reason.

What I think really bothers me about the “breast is best” argument is that, for many, many women, it seems to set such a high standard of motherhood so as to make it unattainable, impractical, or something that they may undertake once, under the right conditions, but not something that they would want to have part of their lives on an ongoing basis. I’m sure that any woman who saw me weeping and literally gnashing my teeth as I struggled to overcome the pain involved with getting my infant to eat would think “thanks but no thanks” to whole process. To me, the whole argument has an association with a view of childrearing that says “we must have to best at all costs for our little prince/princess” from breast feeding at any price to the dupioni silk baby carrier (I saw one the other day when I was trying to buy a bib for my youngest). And if you can’t provide that, you’re really not trying hard enough to fulfill your child’s entitlement to the “best”. In some ways, that’s a very worthy standard, but it pretty much guarantees that having child will be seen as some extraordinary undertaking rather than part of everyday life.

And don’t even get me started on natural childbirth (which, incidentally, all of mine were, not by intention, believe me) or attachment parenting.

__________________________

Tanya agrees: Oh, Patricia, thanks for bringing that up. Didn’t I just feel like the devil the first time I hopped my 2 week old baby up on formula. When you are pregnant, no one seems to mention that breastfeeding might actually be really, really hard.

Here’s a good gauge, now that I have valuable hindsight: If you want to crawl under a rock every single time your newborn cries of hunger, you’re not alone. Breast is not best if it makes mom lose her sanity.

Having fun with image databases

by Leave a Comment

Been browsing the History of Medicine Division of the U.S. National Library of Medicine image database in preparation for a presentation on c-sections. Of course, when you type “birth” in the keyword field, you get images about — no, not birth — birth control. This ad from Planned Parenthood was too good to pass. So giving out information about the physical and emotional complications of abortion is a scare tactic but this isn’t, eh? Still, pro-life kudos to PPH for recognizing (for once?) that women don’t get pregnant on their own.

_____________________________

Andrea adds: I find this ad fascinating–what year is it from? If the feathered hair is any indication, I’m going to guess the 80s. The thrust of pro-choicers today is very different from the spirit of this ad. Today, abortion is private. A woman’s matter. Men don’t matter. The pro-choicers of yesterday, then, were more sensible–if I don’t get pregnant on my own, how come the whole thing is so very private in the end?

_____________________________

Véronique searches but: I couldn’t find the year. It said Utah Planned Parenthood, 19– 

My guess would be the 80s too.

_____________________________

 

Tanya objects: Let’s not knock this ad too much.  It may be what inspired maternity-wear designers to bring out jeans for pregnant women.  Seeing this, they surely said to themselves: “If a man can pull off something other than a mu-mu or overalls while pregnant, surely a woman can, too!”

The wrong side of history

by Leave a Comment

If fighting abortion is not a social justice issue, then what possibly could be? The victims have no voice. The perpetrators have entrenched interests, deny others information and make money by it. Perpetuating abortion results in harmful physical and mental effects that are concealed from the vast majority. (Through a combination of sheer disinterest, deliberate coverups and a lack of freedom of speech.) Overturning it would result in greater freedom and the defence of the ultimate of all rights, the right without which all others are void.

Where we accept abortion we are apathetic, dispassionate and relentlessly cruel.

Being pro-choice means standing on the wrong side of history: A side that says it is just fine to use people, to have sex and leave, to deny a natural and normal result (pregnancy) of a natural and normal action (sex). To live in an empty shell, devoid of all logic and reason, where charity, love and compassion themselves become nothing more than choices.

This culture will be embarrassed in not too long for offering the barbarity of abortion. We will wonder how we excused it, ignored it, concealed it, sanitized it, normalized it. 

If fighting abortion does not constitute social justice, then I don’t know what does.

Here ends the rant. Read about this “new trend,” here.

_________________________

Andrea adds, yes, to her own post: This from William Wilberforce’s great grandson:

There are great similarities between the status of the foetus and the status of African slaves two centuries ago. Slaves were considered a commodity to do with whatever the vested interests of the day decided. Today, in our desire to play God in our embryology experimentation, with all its’ unfulfilled promises of miracle cures, and our decision to abort unwanted children, we are no better that those slave traders who put their interests and world view higher than they placed the sanctity and value of human life.

A ProWomanProLifer who sings, yes I am

by Leave a Comment

I had thought our ProWomanProLife Facebook group was doing well, thank you very much, at 530 members. Until I noticed that the Why Yes, I Do Frequently Burst Out in Song group has 361,639. Now for me, these groups are about equally integral to who I am. So I thought I might try and merge them, for a healthy 362,169… People might not notice. The culture wars continue.  

Unhelpful – why, exactly?

by Leave a Comment

A bit of a depressing piece in today’s Daily Telegraph about parents who “abdicate” their responsibilities by parking their kids in school all day.

Some mothers and fathers “dump” pupils at breakfast clubs and pick them up late in the evening because of the demands of work, said Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers.

Britain’s so-called “back to work culture” – which has also prompted many parents to place children in nurseries from a young age – risked undermining family life, he said.

[…]

He said: “Some parents are abdicating responsibility for their children. They dump them early in the morning at school and are late picking them at the end of the day. There is definitely a lack of care.”

Gosh, you think? Sure, most kids in this kind of situation (or those left in daycare for up to 8 or 9 hours a day, five days a week, before they’re even one year old), will learn to cope and turn out OK. But good grief, what kind of parent are you? There are cases where parents absolutely must work. But I’d be willing to bet they’re not the majority; rather, most working parents think they must both work if they are to afford a lifestyle that is, and should remain, out of their reach. It’s not the same. I know plenty of moms who’ve decided to stay home to raise their own kids (some of them work part-time from home), even if it means not buying a big-screen TV or going camping instead of flying to Disney. It’s a matter of deciding which is more important: your kids or your stuff.

We all know this, including most parents who abandon their kids for up to 10 hours a day, every single day of the week. That’s why they tend to get a touch aggressive when you question (or, dear me, criticize) their way of life. What do you think the British children’s minister [uh? a children’s minister? it’s almost as funny as Quebec’s minister for social solidarity…] had to say to Mr. Brookes?

But Beverley Hughes, the children’s minister, insisted Mr Brooke’s comments were “unhelpful”.

She insisted that more schools were now offering wraparound care to give parents greater opportunity to return to work “if they want”. In a speech, she announced a new £13 million scheme to help vulnerable families in 15 areas. It includes more advisors to help parents organise childcare.

Unhelpful, really? Whereas professionals who advise parents on how to “organise” childcare…

_____________________________

Tanya, offering insight: What does it means to go to the daycare provided as ‘wraparound’ programs in elementary schools?  Well, the child arrives at school at 7:30 am and has breakfast with schoolmates and monitors.  A full day of school ensues.  At quitting time, those children enrolled in the afternoon daycare program slip into another classroom to carry on in a classroom setting for another 2 or 3 hours.  Granted, that’s a worst-case scenario.  But it’s not as rare as we’d like it to be.

 

Everything else aside, how tired do you think that 8 year old is come supper time?

 

_____________________________

Rebecca adds: Whenever raising the minimum wage is discussed, advocates for the working poor point out how hard it is to raise a family on minimum wage x 40 hours/week. Why don’t we just tell the poor to work an extra ten hours a week to boost their household income? Maybe because we recognize the toll that would take on their home lives. So why is it ok for some kids to spend 55 hours a week – “wrap around care” (ugh, what a term) is offered at some centres near me from 7 am until 6 pm – at school or daycare? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was founded upon the model of the RSPCA (animals), in part to highlight the absurdity that housepets had more rights than children under some jurisdictions. Maybe the Solidarity Rallies on May Day should start demanding a more humane workweek for 5 year olds.

Slice of life

by Leave a Comment

I have not been posting much lately and this is not by lack of life issues to comment on. But my thesis is off for revision and while I wait with bated breath for my supervisor’s latest round of “constructive feedback”; I have reverted to a less scholarly, more motherly, daily schedule. Liberated from self-imposed laptop bondage, I find that the opportunities to write are getting fewer while the need for distraction is getting, well, non existent. Life as a full-time mother of five is a never-ending succession of distractions.

I usually write my posts between 6 and 7 am over coffee. Over the last month, a full shift of construction guys has been pouring into my house at 7:30 sharp, making sitting at my computer in my P.J. a non-option. Not so much because I care about my looks – I believe that seeing housewives in their jammies is an occupational hazard when you start working so darn early – but because of the male toddler and his faithful sidekick Cocker Spaniel who feel that power-tool wielding construction guys should be followed everywhere. Since I don’t like a boring life, I woke up one morning and decided that now was as good a time as any to potty-train said male toddler. My performance on the toddler-grab 15 meters dash is improving and so is my 2 year-old’s toilet-to-underpants pee ratio. Now, if I could only train the construction guys to put back the seat adjuster once they are done, my life would be (almost) complete. Do you think I should give them Smarties too?

Since this is a prolife blog, I could not sign off without a bit of prolife news: two of my dearest friends gave birth in the last week to babies over 11 pounds. My hat goes off to two hard working women who give the “miracle of birth” a whole new dimension!

When is withdrawing care appropriate?

by Leave a Comment

Interesting editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, read it here. One passage brought back memories of my ethics placement at the Montreal’s Children’s Hospital:

The case of Samuel Golubchuk, an elderly and very ill man at the threshold of multiple organ failure in a Winnipeg intensive care unit, illustrates this problem. The doctors wanted to withdraw care, and they met with the family on several occasions to seek consent; however, a religious impasse was reached, and Mr. Golubchuk’s son and daughter would not give consent.

 The doctors wanted to withdraw care. One day during morning rounds, we were discussing withdrawal of treatment for a dying infant. A resident used these very words “withdraw care” and was immediately corrected by the attending neonatologist who said: “We never withdraw care…” and a chorus of students completed her sentence: “we withdraw treatment!”

Without referring to the particulars of the Golubchuk case, I wonder to what extent “religious impasses” are not reached when families are given the impression that “care” is withdrawn along with treatment. After all, no religion contends that physical life should never end. But most religions – at least those I know – advocate death with dignity. By this, I do not mean the so-called dignity brandished by euthanasia and assisted suicide supporters. I mean respecting the intrinsic dignity of every human being, regardless of their physical and mental condition. Faced with the imminent death of a loved one, families shouldn’t be made to feel like they are a burden to the system or that health care professionals are giving up on them. If health care professionals can’t or won’t respect the dignity of their dying patients, they are only inviting resistance from those who do. The Golubchuk case is not an invitation to draft more stringent end-of-life clinical guidelines – as was so sensitively done by the Manitoba College of physicians and surgeons, read my previous post on the topic here – but rather an invitation to review how we can effectively extend care where treatment is no longer appropriate.

Meta