Just mentioned Jack Kevorkian the other day, here. He’s back–this time to possibly run as a local candidate for Congress in Michigan. Because he just wants to see some honesty and sincerity in Washington. Don’t we all, Jack, don’t we all.
Abstinence is not a dirty word
Heard a news item on the CBC about rising rates of sexually transmitted infections among young teens. (You can read about it, here.) And what would be the cause of this rise? They don’t get tested.
I would have laughed if it wasn’t so sad. How about young teens are having sex? On goes the CBC reporter: “While abstinence will prevent 100% of sexually transmitted infections…” — I never thought I would live to hear the CBC talk about teen sex and abstinence in the same segment — “… it isn’t for everybody.”
Abstinence may not be for everybody but if I had to take a wild guess at a likely population for abstinence education, 13-year-olds would be my second choice… right after 12-year-olds.
Button, Button, Where is the Button
Wonderful science, always hard at work, trying to create a superior race! But here we find a couple who are fighting for the right to have a deaf child.
It is a cornerstone of modern society and law that deaf and hearing people have equal rights. If hearing people were to have the right to throw away a deaf embryo, then we as deaf people should also have the right to throw away a hearing embryo.
I find, as people, we’re awfully good at validating arguments when it’s all too convenient for our case. How many time has one said, on abortion, “Who knows if that aborted baby could have found a cure for cancer or AIDS,” only to hear back, “or it could have been the next Hitler.”
It’s true; to an extent, the point is moot. But the couple pulls at our heart strings, saying:
Some will be artists, some will be accountants, some may go to Oxbridge, following the path that several of my deaf friends have already beaten. If they had been conceived via IVF, and detected as deaf at that stage, then all would have been aborted before birth.
Suddenly this is only true for deaf embryos? A moment ago, they were requesting the right to discard hearing embryos.
I’m well aware that this is a case of discrimination but, in the end, every discarded embryo and every aborted fetus deserves such passionate advocacy. If they all can be recognized to have innate rights, it stands to reason that the deaf will not be left out.
Hysterical
The beauty of this piece is that when the irate write in to disagree, it only proves Barbara Kay’s point.
Euphemisms on the radio
Rob Snow interviewed Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast this morning here.
It’s a good, fair interview, but the host uses the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” multiple times.
I am decidedly against the use of euphemisms to describe abortion. “The right to choose?” There is no such right, neither figuratively nor constitutionally, and of course we are talking about taking a life.
But it got me thinking: Maybe I should use more euphemisms. “Why, Archbishop Prendergast, don’t you support a man’s right to unadulterated, responsibility-free sex?” (One raised eyebrow and an accusing glare…) Well? Why not? Because everyone supports a man’s–and a woman’s–right to fun, free, unfettered-by-future-possibilities-of-children, sex.
Yes indeed, euphemisms could prove very helpful.
_____________________
Tanya adds: How about anti-consequence? Or, playing on its antonym, pro-unimportance (which would suit Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada just fine, as she’s quoted as saying, “fetuses are not that important”)!
_____________________
Véronique adds: Just to make it clear: the radio host is using “a woman’s right to choose” instead of “abortion.” Not the Archbishop. In fact, Archbishop Pendergast’s first sentence makes the link between “a woman’s right to choose,” abortion and the taking of an innocent human life.
That being said, I am irked beyond description by the use of “a woman’s right to choose” like it’s some kind of birth right. None of us are born with unfettered rights to choose whatever. A “woman’s right to choose” is not only an euphemism, it’s a lie. But that wouldn’t be the first one.
_____________________
Andrea adds: Thank you, Véronique. “The right to choose” is indeed, both a euphemism and a lie. And yes, the host used the euphemisms, and the Archbishop spoke against those and did an admirable job, too. Sorry if my post was not clear.
PWPL welcomes new blogger Tanya Zaleski
ProWomanProLife welcomes Tanya Zaleski.
Tanya was born and raised on the South Shore of Montreal, where she completed just shy of a full year of CEGEP (Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel or College of General and Vocational Education) in fine arts.
Her life, she says, is a series of good and bad decisions “which have lead me to where I am today.” She thinks the journey has allowed her to become less judgmental. “Thank goodness,” she laughs, “because I must have been unbearable until I was at least 20 or so.” Today, 31 and counting, she sums up her philosophy of life this way: “Always believe the best about people, and always try to meet people where they are.”
When did Tanya become pro-life? Her mother says she must have been nine or ten, during the Morgentaler proceedings when she first voiced an opinion. Her mother describes the infamous day that Tanya declared, in the presence of dinner guests, that “They should not be allowed to do [abortion]!” or something to that effect. Tanya says her mother, although disposed to keeping her views to herself, “always allowed us to speak our minds, even when she did not share our stance on a particular issue.”
It was years later, at the age of 16 that Tanya converted to Christianity and subsequently moved to St. Catharines, Ontario, where she attended two years of Bible college. At 23, Tanya says she “married foolishly,” and got divorced not long after that. Just over five years ago, she moved back to her hometown of Montreal and subsequently got “very unexpectedly pregnant.” In May 2005 her baby girl was born. “My boyfriend and I named her Evangelina,” she says.
“I’ve wept with friends and family who have had or were considering abortion. Women need support; women need options. Abortion is like an option vacuum. It is completely unfair,” says Tanya.
Today, Tanya is a stay-at-home mom of one and a self-taught, self-employed photographer.
Welcome, Tanya!
One angry man
Sympathy levels remain high for Robert Latimer. But if Canadians knew the truth about his daughter’s situation–and about him–would they still feel that way?
This story in Maclean’s is excellent for showing Latimer’s true colours.
I’ve heard Jack Kevorkian has been a boon to the anti-euthanasia movement–because he’s just that extreme. Perhaps Latimer might do the same in Canada?
York U calls for absolute free speech…
Recently, the York Federation of Students cancelled an on-campus abortion debate just five hours before its scheduled start time. Gilary Massa, vice-president equity for YFS, told Maclean’s the debate would be discussing taking away women’s rights. She also compared an abortion debate to one about whether or not beating women should be allowed.
But don’t go thinking the YFS is pro-censorship. The day after the debate’s cancellation, Massa led York delegates to McMaster University to protest that institution’s infringement on free speech.
The YFS and several other student unions rallied to condemn McMaster for censoring a controversial poster containing the phrase “Israel Apartheid” and a violent graphic. The various student unions called for McMaster to allow absolute free speech on its campus.
Are you high end?
Anyone still questioning whether prostitution is demeaning to women or just another way to pay the bills ought to reflect on Washington’s latest sex scandal. How many times have you heard/read “high end prostitutes” in today’s news? Like high end condos, high end neighborhoods, now we can also buy high end women. Don’t you feel valued?
No sirree, it’s not over
Thank you. The abortion debate is not over. That’s not what the Supreme Court said. They said there is such a thing as fetal rights, and we ought to have Parliament decide.
It is a start to simply get the word out that the Supreme Court of Canada was not opposed to fetal rights. My job is to show Canadians that granting fetal rights is not opposed to women’s rights. This is not an either/or scenario. Women will thrive when their babies do too.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 458
- 459
- 460
- 461
- 462
- …
- 480
- Next Page »