HUSH is a film by Mighty Motion Pictures that views through both lenses the controversial field of research around abortion’s health risks. Canadian director and pro-choice advocate Punam Kumar Gill collaborates with Canadian producer and pro-life advocate Joses Martin to investigate the long-term effects of having an abortion.
[Tweet “Hush is not pro-choice or pro-life. It’s pro-information”].
Read about the documentary and then download and view it!
Articles like these do not reflect my sentiment as a pro-life woman. Being pro-life/anti-abortion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it reflects a genuinely pro-woman sentiment, not some rebranding so that my message can be more tenable. Ours is the novel idea that women ought to be accepted in all their reproductive capacities. Certainly my view also partners with the humanity of the preborn–we are not aborting cucumbers, after all–to suggest that there is something of value, a fetus, which is the result (in many instances) of a natural thing called sex. These are facts on the ground that we need to recognize.
The author also adds that pro-life folks lost the battle long ago. I’d argue the presence of his column is evidence that the pro-choice victory has not been complete. In order for a complete pro-choice victory to occur, we would have to wipe out all joy at the prospect of a wanted child being born. When that happens, women might feel entirely unconflicted about the act of abortion.
However, since that won’t happen, we will muddle through with pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike muttering about the matter. It’s just not going to go away quietly into the realm of non-controversial.
…Well, not always. What is immoral cannot always be illegal, nor should it be. Me in The Federalist on Jian Ghomeshi. My friend Rebecca Walberg, once PWPL blogger, would say this article falls into the “In Defence of Stigma” category.
There is a third way to consider this troubling trial. It is that Ghomeshi is simultaneously guilty in the culture by moral standards, yet not guilty in a court of law. This view encapsulates the idea that what is legal is not always moral and what is moral is not always legal. It should be perfectly feasible to stigmatize a behavior as wrong without taking it to court.
What: Ottawa Against Abortion Music for Life Concert
When: April 29th, 7pm (doors open at 6:30pm)
Where: St. Patrick’s Basilica (basement) (281 Nepean St.)
Why: To support OAA’s work
More information can be found on their Facebook page, here. The concert is free but there will be a silent auction and they are gladly taking donations! Come on out and support a group working to make abortion unthinkable in the Ottawa region.
This concert will be way more fun than sitting around with your headphones on!
It’s happening, a recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal says.
While the natural odds of having a boy over a girl are slightly higher, they are consistent across the globe: up to 107 boys for every 100 girls. But Indian-born mothers living in Canada with two children had 138 boys for every 100 girls. In Ontario, that number inflated even more among Indian-born women with two daughters, who then gave birth to 196 boys for every 100 girls.
After abortions, the numbers rise dramatically: 326 boys after one abortion, 409 boys after multiple abortions, and 663 boys for every 100 girls following multiple abortions in the second trimester, when doctors can determine the sex of the fetus.
280 is the number of abortions in Canada daily.
Watch a video about this new social media campaign from Life Canada here.
It’s amazing to me that this goes unnoticed. We are used to it; we get confused (Person? Fetus? Human being? Child? What is it?)
But regardless of what you think the fetus is in the moment it is aborted, the loss of a city the size of Waterloo every year is a pretty sad fact, a huge loss of potential. It is our downfall that we cannot welcome children into our lives with greater ease. That we see so much else as being more important.
This is an individual tragedy, that many women mourn. It’s also a collective tragedy for which we must all take responsibility.
How easy have I made it for a woman to see her pregnancy through to full term? That’s the question I’m asking myself today.
This isn’t about pointing fingers at women who have had abortions, or the men who took them to the clinic. It’s about all of us and what we desire for this country.
I am glad people are outraged by this.
When Felipe Montoya applied three years ago to become a permanent resident of Canada with his wife and two children, he ran into those barriers. One of Montoya’s children, his son Nicolas, has Down syndrome, a condition that prompted Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to determine that Montoya and family may be inadmissible on health grounds. Montoya, a native of Costa Rica, has been a professor of environmental studies at York University for the past four years. As numerous news stories have reported, on March 3 he received a letter from CIC — signed, “Sincerely, DO877” — saying that “it appears that you or your family member may not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.”
The letter from D0877, following wording dictated by bureaucratic form letters, continues: “I have determined that your family member Nicolas Montoya is a person whose health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on social services in Canada. An excessive demand is demand for which the anticipated costs exceed the average Canadian per capita health and social services costs, which is currently set at $6,387 per year. Pursuant to subsection 38(1) … of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it therefore appears that you may be inadmissible on health grounds.” The reason: “Your family member, Nicolas Montoya, has the following medical condition: Down’s syndrome.”
We should also be outraged that this same mentality–children who are different are too difficult and too expensive–encourages the vast majority of women to abort their children when they receive a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic abnormality.
More to the point, on Gloria Steinem not making any sense at all.
The power of the State,’ Steinem opined, ‘stops at the skin.’
Sage wisdom, or superficial tripe? Read the link to decide.
This fish doesn’t need a bicycle. Another Steinemism.
Wise words from a young woman. Wish there was more out there like this, stories from women who face an unplanned pregnancy and keep the baby. How great that someone was able to encourage her, that there was a place to go, even though she was very angry at the time. I’d love to go more in depth with her on how things are going, how she is achieving her goals, what kind of help she is getting, what has been the most difficult, what has been the most rewarding. That kind of thing. Certainly seems to be a bright, young woman–and with a bit of perspective, it’s hard to see how her beautiful daughter will “ruin” her life.
This is apparently a gaffe. From Hillary Clinton, this time. I have a hard time registering it as such. It just goes to show you that this issue of abortion is not settled. It is impossible to make every living soul use the term “fetus” in every instance, instead of person or child.
“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”
