More often than you might think, I hear about a woman who, through my direct group of friends/acquaintances is considering abortion. Has it scheduled. Sometimes I hear the reasons. Sometimes I don’t. I always offer the help I believe is most appropriate. In matters of life or death, this is not a time to be “Canadian.” I don’t aim to be obnoxious, either. I just aim to speak my mind, hopefully, with compassion.

This time all I could do was offer a simple encouragement to my friend who is friends with the woman scheduled for an abortion. I strongly encouraged her to speak her mind with this woman; to raise some hopeful options. (This is a woman who is saying she will get an abortion, but also desperately wanted a child.)

These moments always highlight a couple of things for me:

1. That in a very concrete way there is a baby right now who may not be by the end of the week

2. That we have created spaces and we fund them and therefore sanction them where women can arrive pregnant and leave not pregnant but the fact remains that they are, before and after, mothers

3. That behind the masses and statistics of abortion there are always individual people

4. That my first concern is always for the born mother, and secondarily for the unborn child. That was my response last night when I heard of this case and it came naturally to me, not as some PR spin as pro-choicers want you to believe. Aborting her very much wanted child does damage to women–damage no one but the most ideological contest

5. That turning away or saying “it’s her choice” is just about the most terrible response anyone could possibly have. Why do we think of this as respectful?

There are few things so tragic as loss of life, however that happens. But what is worse is when we sanction the loss of life and then tell everyone to shut up about their grief. In the current circumstance, I don’t know the woman. Therefore, I can’t reach out to her. I’m told I shouldn’t care. Call me crazy, and many do, but when someone is signing for the death of their own child, I care about it and it weighs on me. I wish I could do more. That’s all.

Someone sent me this. It’s old, so I’m not sure why/how the blogosphere called this up just now.

Have a watch. It’s Hillary Clinton responding to a pro-lifers question about whether “reproductive rights” include abortion abroad.

Here’s what I see in her reply:

She starts with personal anecdotes. I would do that too. My stories would be different, but they are no less gut wrenching. I’ll spare you the details here, but suffice to say, I know post-abortive women who have cried on the floor in the fetal position because they feel the loss of their child so acutely. It’s not exactly the picture of empowerment.

She moves into some very contested territory. The facts: Good medical care reduces maternal mortality, regardless of whether abortion is legal or not. But what she says is that good medical care and access to abortion decrease abortion rates. Which is false in her country and ours too. Abortion rates went up upon legalizing. They’ve remained incredibly high ever since. We might see some fiddling at the edges. By that, I mean a slight decline or a slight rise. At this point we don’t know here in Canada because we stopped keeping accurate abortion statistics. But the legal environment both here and in the United States has kept abortion anything but rare.

That’s the falsehood of her assertion (a more reasonable position than many) that abortion be safe, legal and rare. It is not safe in her country: Women die in abortions. It is legal. It is not at all rare.

So. Spare me the pain of saying that this is some bold statement in favour of women’s rights.

As a final note, I will thank Hillary Clinton for being reasonable, since she at very least pretends to want abortion to be rare, which is not what a lot of her sisters in the movement would say. I’ll never forget a woman at a pro-choice conference at University of Toronto law school asking why on earth a woman couldn’t ask for a third trimester abortion for social reasons. The people on the podium appeared uncomfortable… but hey–those are their supporters. Some of their people absorbed the message of “my body, my choice” and are willing to apply it to any point of pregnancy for any reason. It’s consistent, and pro-choicers must be held accountable for that.

When attachment comes up, generally people have some mixed ideas around what that means, and how it ought to be applied. Parents–you decide whether you want to co-sleep with your kids! I won’t offer advice. (In case you are wondering, I wouldn’t, but really, who cares? I don’t have kids.)

In a basic way, every human being needs to be attached to others, and this is something we miss in bigger picture discussions of the topic. My workplace did an interview with Vancouver-based developmental psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld, in which he explains the concept, and why it matters, why it is that kids are harder to parent these days in the absence of an attachment-friendly culture. All the YouTube clips can be found at the link above. Here’s one:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TSukxwzY7E]

I found this study to be amusing and consoling at the same time.   It reminds me of a study some years ago that appeared on the front page of the Globe and Mail showing, much to the utter surprise of the researchers, that girls and boys are different.  Well, here we have it again, folks.  Men and women’s brains are wired differently.

The study, published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, found striking differences in the neural wiring of men and women giving credence to commonly-held beliefs about their different skills and behaviour…

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.  The study also found that women are much more intuitive, better at listening, and more emotionally involved when people talk to them.

I just got such a kick out of Run With Life’s Youtube clip making fun of Premier Wynne’s YouTube clip. Please do watch both. You should watch Premier Wynne’s clip first.

Pat Maloney of Run With Life is trying achieve transparency in government on abortion records. Fortunately, Premier Wynne says she wants the same thing. Maybe they can walk together some day. Or, if Premier Wynne insists on running–well, good news. I like running too!! And I too, often set hard goals for myself.

It’s so good to all be on the same page.

If you have no idea why Pat is concerned, it has to do with abortion statistics being unavailable in Ontario. Read this for background.

Enjoy!

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2PXySGHbnk]

[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yki13hV95aY]

There is an option if a woman takes the RU-486 abortion pill and changes her mind. Here’s a story from LifeSiteNews:

Her pregnancy was confirmed at seven weeks, but they didn’t let her see the baby or hear the heartbeat. She was given RU-486, the “abortion pill,” and was watched while she swallowed it. She was immediately remorseful and knew this was going against everything she believed in. She did not want an abortion, she just wanted love and support. She asked the abortionist what she could do if she changed her mind, and she was told that if she did not complete the procedure and take the pills to induce labor, that her baby would still die, but if it didn’t then it would be born deformed or mentally deficient.

Ashley was heartbroken and wanted help. She confessed to her mother what had happened and what she had done. But instead of rejecting Ashley, her mother hugged her and offered the support only a loving mother could. They called the local crisis pregnancy center, who then called me. When I answered the call, I had no idea what to do, but told them to send her over to talk…

And here’s some medical research:

Health care professionals should be aware of the possible use of progesterone to reverse mifepristone in women who have begun the medical abortion process by taking mifepristone and then change their minds.

And progesterone is so readily available.

This little clip is heartwarming. Don’t expect it to have to do with abortion. Perhaps you, in moments, also feel that the relationships around you, the marriages, they are either splitting, very difficult, divorced and/or lacklustre? So I was so happy to see this true story about a beautiful love story. “She lights up my life when she asks me in the evening ‘wouldn’t you like a little ice cream?'” Simple.

[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNfvuJr9164#t=341]

I share Barbara Kay’s concerns about the lack of informed consent on abortion. I bought the book she mentions in her article, called Complications. I think it’s excellent. And I don’t think it is pro-life or pro-choice to share this information widely with women who will consider abortion.

Soul-searching days lie ahead for ideologues invested in the notion that abortion is a minor, virtually risk-free procedure, without medical or psychological residue. For many “progressives,” the right to unfettered abortion is the quintessential symbol of women’s liberation from the patriarchy. Any constraint at all, even on a woman’s confidence in aborting — whether or not it constitutes rational consideration of her own best interests — represents a defeat in the battle for gender equality. But this absolutism was adopted in simpler scientific times, before DNA, ultrasounds and longitudinal epidemiological studies. These scientific advances have altered the perceptions of many ordinary Canadians who had previously given little thought to the “blob of tissue” being extracted from women, but who now rightly regard abortion (especially sex selection abortion) as a complex, morally freighted issue.

Soul-searching, is one way to put it, yes.

This morning I watched a 20 minute episode of Facing Life Head-On. Brad Mattes, the host, explored a sex and relationship high school program in Cincinnati called Healthy Visions. I’ve included the episode below. This program’s message has pulled kids from suicide, self-harming behaviours and toxic relationships and taught them they had worth. All while teaching them about sex and relationships.

Well that’s impressive.

Check out the panel interview at the 11.36 minute mark and the 19:40 minute mark if you don’t have time to watch the whole thing. You’ll want to invite the program’s coordinator, Russell Proctor, on a cross-country speaking tour.

Anyone want to bankroll that?

Imagine if this  program was offered in high schools across Canada?

Here’s more on the program:

Rather than just focusing on discussing the issues, Healthy Visions focuses on the individual. It meets students where they are and communicates a message of self-worth, self-respect and self-confidence. Using the value of each person as a foundation, it helps the teenagers develop better decision making skills by demonstrating how actions have consequences. It teaches them how to weigh the potential risks of certain behaviors against the alleged benefits. This skill equips students to deal with situations including alcohol, drugs or sex.

Another focus of the program is on relationships—from dating, to friendships, to family. They compare negative behaviors like jealousy, anger and disrespect to positive ones such as trust, security and importance of core values. Strong relationships are critical to the teens’ ongoing support and encouragement. The program also addresses harmful behaviors like substance abuse, eating disorders and even suicidal thoughts. The idea is that students can find forgiveness and healing, and can change their lives for the better.