ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

Even in France…

by Leave a Comment

The government just announced that by 2012, French citizens would have a guaranteed right to child care (meaning parents will be in a position to go to court to force the government to deliver services if those aren’t readily available when needed). See the story in Le Monde, here (en français).

What’s particularly interesting is the government’s insistence on diversity in the kinds of services to be offered. Public daycare, private daycare, at-work daycare, at-home care, even trying to facilitate telecommuting for working parents so they can keep their babies with them at home, nothing seems off the table.

Pour moi, le droit opposable, ce n’est pas simplement la crèche publique : cela peut être la crèche associative, la crèche d’entreprise, l’emploi à la personne, l’emploi à domicile”, affirmait [Nicolas] Sarkozy pendant la campagne.

Memo to those who want a federally-funded, national public daycare system here in order to bring Canada closer to the “European” model: Europeans aren’t as interested in universal public systems as you think they should be…

Quebec being misled

by Leave a Comment

La Presse, a popular Montreal news source, has called Bill C-484 the “federal abortion law.” (For those who may not know, it’s actually a bill to protect pregnant women and their fetus from violent crimes against the mother.) Translated:

According to many, including physicians, women’s groups and affiliated unions, [the bill] opens the door to some recognition of fetal rights, therefore to the abortion debate.

Supposing that there is much meat to the statement above (which there isn’t) why shouldn’t the abortion debate be opened – I should say ‘remain open?’ In 1988, when the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law, it was left to Parliament to introduce a new law on the issue. It’s now 20 years passed, and thank goodness I wasn’t holding my breath.

Our work cut out for us

by Leave a Comment

This argument comes up quite often:

Please, isn’t it about time to use the correct 21st century medical nomenclature. A fetus is not a baby any more than a man’s sperm or a woman’s ova is a baby.

Er, actually, there’s a big difference between sperm and a baby, and an egg and a baby. Modern man: You’d think we’d have nailed down the birds and bees by now.

_____________________________

Tanya adds: This letter is a great example of non-sensical pro-abortion thought.

As for those people who seek out an abortion for sex selection, this reflects their misogynistic attitude towards or about women… 

The fight for enlightenment and equality and access to safe medical abortions is part of the women’s movement and is still an ongoing struggle.

Pairing abortion with equality is misogyny. If we embrace women, why draw the line at rejecting their capacity to reproduce?  It’s not an illness, the fact that we get pregnant from having sex!

 

Contraception and peace of mind

by Leave a Comment

A recent study shows a correlation between emotional distress and imperfect contraceptive use. Read more here.

Between 10 and 20 percent of women reported that noncompliant behavior with their current method negatively affected work activities and their relationship with their partner, and about 3 percent had missed days of work or school. A higher percentage of pill users reported that they were ‘worried’ or ‘scared’ (68.8 percent and 22.6 percent respectively) compared with women using the skin patch (61.7 percent and 19 percent) or the vaginal ring (58.3 percent and 16.4 percent).

 

60 to 70 percent of hormonal contraception users regularly feel worried? Many have problems at work and in their relationships? This is definitely a stark contrast to the confident, liberated women portrayed in the commercials. Where’s the disclaimer that states “results not typical?”

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU90rwIy7GY]

Legislation to think about

by Leave a Comment

South Carolina may pass legislation requiring abortion doctors to offer their patients the option of an ultrasound.

A legislative compromise formally announced Thursday says women must wait at least an hour after seeing the ultrasound to have an abortion.

In other words, the bill recognizes the fact that women are rushed into the decision to abort.

Pro-abortion groups, however, label this sort of legislation unethical conspiracy. Their idea of pro-choice is not the sort of choosing that involves thoughtful consideration, I guess.

__________________________

More and more Andrea thinks: The purpose of quick access to abortion is to ensure a woman doesn’t overthink what she’s doing. Pro-choice advocates–I’m talking about the extreme ones–don’t want women thinking–just acting. Quickly. (Act now, and ponder later–not a good combo.)

The conscience of a nation, part III

by Leave a Comment

I wasn’t expecting a part III to this sordid story but here it is.  Instead of hanging her head in shame, “abortion as art” student Aliza Shvarts is now adament that Yale, in damage control mode, has misrepresented her and her project. Yesterday I commented that those busting the story were not able to prove that she had not done this, only that it could not logically have succeeded. Shvarts is herself now saying this is precisely the case.

But Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding, she said. She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant.

One more thing: It’s far too easy to say she’s mentally disturbed. She got into Yale University, for the love of the saints. No–she is a product of her pro-choice culture and ultimately, saw nothing wrong with what she was doing. And neither did her professor, and neither did her friends.

____________________________

Lookee here, Andrea adds: Think the project is disgusting? You ought then to consider whether you are not actually, secretly pro-life. Because your fellow pro-choicers have this to say:

The Yale Women’s Center stands strongly behind the fact that a woman’s body is her own. Whether it is a question of reproductive rights or of artistic expression, Aliza Shvarts’ body is an instrument over which she should be free to exercise full discretion.

_____________________________

Tanya adds: Am I ever glad The Yale Women’s Center is acting like a bunch of zealots. This may succeed in alienating other so-called pro-choice women on (and off) campus and force them to re-analyze their stance on the issue of abortion. (That’s my optimism talking.)

_____________________________

Brigitte is about ready to give up: The student speaks. She shouldn’t have. 

The conscience of a nation, part II

by Leave a Comment

Newsbusters says the Yale “abortion as art” story is fake. Read about it here:

Lastly, I’d like to say how cynical and disgusting the entire concept is in the first place. To purposefully create nascent life only to kill it for the sake of “art” is a dangerous concept. How far could such a concept take us into the darkness of true evil? Would it be acceptable to kill small animals for the sake of “art”? If not, why not? After all, if killing human life is acceptable for the sake of “art” why put a limit on killing animals for the same reason?

Though the author raises good points, and the whole piece is worth a read, he doesn’t actually disprove that she tried to do this project, only that it could not logically have succeeded. So we’re back where we began: With a student, her friends and professor who condoned this project, which is to me far worse than the fact that one girl would try.

____________________________________

Brigitte adds: The Newsbuster piece is updated with a link to a New York Sun story that confirms the story is a fake. (Apparently “The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.”) And the Newsbuster author to add:

Yes, it’s all a scam. Just as I thought. The sad thing is that, without so much as giving this story some thought, so many news outlets reported this as fact earlier this morning.

Well, yeah, I for one believed it. I’m not sure it’s worse than an institution of “higher learning” going ahead with such a stupid idea in order to “draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.” Because face it, that too sounds too crazy to be true… 

The conscience of a nation

by Leave a Comment

Abortion as art. Read about it here, at one of America’s Ivy League schools. (The site is slow so be patient and prepare yourself. I mean that.)

______________________________

Tanya adds: Art is created for other to experience and interpret. The more people view and critique it, the greater purpose the art itself has served. For this reason, I insist on making this comment: No comment.

______________________________

Brigitte adds: Well, since we’re apparently allowed (encouraged?) to produce “art” with bits of human tissue and assorted clumps of cells, what say we put together a proposal to record, on video, the experience of pulling nails out of the artist’s body – with her consent, obviously, we believe in choice, don’t we – and display the resulting mess along with all the, er, retrieved bits (with or without Vaseline, I’m not difficult), and see what the artist says? Would she think such a project likely to “provoke inquiry”?

Oh, and while we’re at it, how about we ask women who are grieving their miscarried babies for their opinion on the subject?

___________________________

Update: Get the full story below: The Yale site is crashing–probably due to too much traffic.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process. [Read more…]

The comprehensive ocean of my business

by Leave a Comment

Divorce and family breakdown is your business. Economically speaking, anyway.

We keep hearing this from state legislators, ‘Explain to me why this is any of my business? Aren’t these private matters?'” Blankenhorn said. “Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt…

Reminds me of a line from one of my favourite movies (the Alastair Sim’s version) of A Christmas Carol. Jacob Marley’s lines are rendered more effective when delivered looking plaintively into the distance, holding heavy chains (which you must rattle periodically) and in a desperate and shrieking tone. Just a tip.

But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,” faltered Scrooge… “Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again.  “Mankind was my business.  The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business.  The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

(I’m at least partially aware that the correlation between family breakdown, economic prosperity and A Christmas Carol is weak. But an opportunity to link to the scene itself cannot be missed.)

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGGohTPuOeQ]  

______________________________

Tanya adds:

Economically speaking AND environmentally speaking… Dr. Jianguo Liu says this in “Demographic Winter“:

What we find is that globally, actually, the number of households has been increasing much faster than the number of people. In order to create more households, you will use more resources. And in the meantime you will create more greenhouse gases.  If the efficiency of resources used in divorced households is the same as married households, then, in 2005 alone, the US could have saved 73 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and also conserved 600 billion gallons of water.

(Funny how a large, intact family gets the evil eye from environmentalists.)

 

The results of the full study were released in December, 2007 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071204.wldivorce04/BNStory/lifeFamily/home

 

 

Abortion is still abhorrent

by Leave a Comment

On sex selection abortion–this letter to the editor in the Ottawa Citizen today. I do agree with the writer, and when we are able to convince this culture that abortion is not compassionate, we will also see sex selection abortion diminish.

Now that said, I also believe we ought to reject out of hand the cultural proclivity that says girls are not worth as much as boys. We should not attempt to understand it, or accomodate it. That, however, becomes more difficult to do when we are AOK with disposing of human life for financial reasons. Or because the time is not right. Which for a woman from a different culture may sound every bit as fatuous as any other reason for abortion, including gender.

Way back when I wrote Canada’s Lost Daughters I uncovered a Women’s Hospital (Vancouver, BC) memo–which showed that staff were working to better understand sex selection abortion. And such is the desperation of a pro-abortion culture–that some pro-choicers can’t come out and say quite simply gender is a bad reason for an abortion.

“I personally believe it is wrong, but I can’t tell a woman what to do” dies hard.

Meta