July 20, 2008
Sheila Harding, on Saturday morning coffee:
J. Budziszewski calls it The Revenge of Conscience. See: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3541
________________________________
Christy Knockleby, on Saturday morning coffee:
Several comments in the Globe and Mail article struck me as interesting. One of them was: “When an unplanned pregnancy happens, when an abortion happens, she says, women are judged, but ‘the men involved are spared this.’” It seems to me that if we claim the decision is between the woman and her doctor, then it would make sense to let the men off the hook, doesn’t it? Of course they were involved in creating the pregnancy, but if they’re not supposed to be involved in the decision to abort…. why are we supposed to judge them for the woman’s decision? Except of course nothing is clear cut.
I had a friend whose personal blog included talk about her abortion. One of the things that struck me was how she talked about how her boyfriend didn’t want to pressure her either way so he kept quite and told her it was her decision. She aborted the child saying she didn’t want to make his life harder, only to find out that he and all the other people who were keeping quiet so she could make her own decision…. well… they would have been okay with her raising the child. A child is part of a web, connected to other people even before it is born, all of whom would be affected by the child’s birth or death, yet pro-choicers talk as though the decision is supposed to be left to one person only. People don’t know what they’re supposed to say or not say.
I was also struck by the phrase: “the father of my two abortions.” Abortions have fathers. That sounds weird. People have fathers.
________________________________
Seraphic Single, on Yeah, good question:
Well said. I read John’s well-written article with interest, and I was not sold. For one thing, he hauls out the careworn old abolitionist analogies, and they just do not apply here. When the Christian abolitionists were active, the USA was a Christian country. The cultural and political elites were Christians–Bible-reading Christians of a conservative, if not orthodox, nature. Bronson and Louisa May Alcott, Unitarians, were about as wild and woolly as they got in the 1850s and 1860s.
The cultural and political elite of 21st century Canada are not Bible-reading Christians, and thanks to a distrust of Christian texts, two or three generations of Canadians are now basically illiterate when it comes to the Bible. We are thereby cut off from our intellectual-spiritual-cultural past.
No-one is askingChristian pro-lifers to stop being Christians. What I would like to see, however, is Christian pro-lifers hiring a top P.R. firm so as to learn how to better convince Canadians that they are worth listening to.
________________________________
Amy, on I blame rampant individualism:
Thank you for posting this! It pretty much sums up my position on the matter.
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on Challenging the debate:
“at the moment, we (as a society) do not believe that the elderly infirm can be killed because they may not be aware of their own existence and consciousness, nor do we believe this about people of any age suffering brain damage that impairs their consciousness.”
Well, I don’t know about that! What was the CMA supported court battle to starve an elderly man to death all about? The Canadian doctors are fighting to have exclusive control of determining the ‘rubric of human value’, and ultimately, control of who lives and who dies while in their care. If Canadian society has not encouraged this, why is it happening? (I don’t believe we can blame Peter Singer for all of it!)
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on What does this say about our priorities?:
Good comment.
________________________________
Cynthia Millan, on Oh to be more like Dilbert:
I think when women fought so long and hard for the “right” to be able to get back into the workforce after bearing children…that women started to think that they HAD to get back into the workforce after bearing children. Society had this big expectation of - “you fought for it, so go do it”- And I think for quite some time that was part of the motivating force for many women - they felt ‘obligated’ to go back. Especially if they had spent many years in post-secondary education and had “achieved” a sought-after level or position. Highly-educated women who willingly left these positions to stay home with children were looked at as if they possessed three heads!
I know. I am one of them.
I had the luxury of being employed in a job that was interesting, intrinsically rewarding and, arguably, ‘important’. I gave up the employment and the salary - for longer hours, no pay, no holidays — but rewards that cannot be itemized, and fulfillment that words are incapable of expressing. My life now is far more interesting, far more fulfilling, and unarguably - MUCH more important!!
Woman’s lib told me I “had the right” to be in the workforce.
But common sense and a desire to *be* a mother (in more than just the biological sense) told me that was a “right”, not a command.
I have friends who have “mortgaged their kids” in order to have a big house, a second car, yearly vacations - and part and parcel with this is the never-ending drive to have a bigger house, a higher-end car, all the newest toys and gadgets, more exotic vacation destinations…. Society has geared everyone to believe that you need it “all” or else you are unfulfilled. And yet, the happiest families I know, bar none, are the ones who threw materialism to the wind and focussed, instead, on being a family. We have everything we really need. And happiness is having what you need, not *needing* what you merely want.
When you want less, you invariably “have” more.
Me? I’ve got it all! 
________________________________
Cynthia Millan, on Over before it began:
While there is a part of me that remains viscerally horrified at Morgentaler’s Order of Canada, another part of me is “excited” (?? for lack of a better word). Because this despicable incident has re-awakened the ire of many in this country. Many who have passively been bemoaning the lack of an abortion law in our country have been inspired, recently, to be a little more active in decrying the situation. And so many who have been complacent have had their anger at the situation re-ignited. With any luck, at least a proportion of us who went from quietly shaking our heads to actively calling, e-mailing and writing letters, will continue to do so.
I agree with the PWPL members. We need to be angry. We need to be loud. And we need our discontent to be sustained.
Historically, if you wait long enough, issues like this tend to die down. And that is exactly what *they* were counting on. But the debate is NOT over. And I, for one, am not quietly going away this time. They were itching for a fight when they opened this can of worms. Let’s give them one!
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on Yeah, good question:
Although its true that ’some Christians can be ‘off-putting’, I don’t think that accounts for the lack of non-Christian interest in the pro-life movement. Andrea has a valid point- the basic reason FOR respecting life originates in our history as a Christian culture - a belief in a creative , responsive and loving God.
Its pretty hard to convince ‘for life’ based on ‘what’s good for me’, which would be the secular humanist perspective. One could try ‘what’s good for society, is good for you’, which sometimes works, but looking at Canadian society today- not too effective in Canada.
Members of pro-life groups often have this very discussion. (Even the Christian groups.) In fact, I had this discussion with my brother this evening. He suggested that its difficult to support something like a pro-life group, if you don’t know what you believe. He begins dialogue with nominal ‘abortion supporters’ by asking them. Do they believe that the fetus is an individual human being? Do they believe that every human being is a person? Do they believe that it is wrong to kill any person/human being?
Honestly, asking myself the same questions , I don’t know what my answer to the second one would be , if I didn’t believe in God. If I only believed that a human was a person if the law told me so,(as apparantly many Canadians do), I would likely be a disinterested pro-choicer (as many Canadians are).
Its not necessary to be Christian to respect life, but it helps. A lot.
As an aside, I don’t believe its helpful for pro-lifers to get queasy about the beliefs of each other. Its probably better to accept that its all good-intentioned, and ignore the parts we’re not personally comfortable with. I count on the ‘rosary ladies’ to continue their petitioning of Heaven. I don’t take the time to pray enough, being far too busy doing more, um, practical? stuff like blogging and raising kids (which often compete for the same time slot!).
Each plays their part, and whatever we personally believe ‘the Universe’ will sort it.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Yeah, good question:
Actually there is another famous name and woman with the pro abortion movement in the U.S. who was pro abortion and now has completely abandoned and is against abortion and the pro abortion movement. Her name is Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade whose name was synonomous with pro abortion in the landmark case that legalized abortion south of the border in 1973.
Andrea you should do an interview with Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade to find out why she abandoned the pro abortion movement and is now totally against abortion today after being involved with the most high profile pro abortion case in legal history?
I am quite certain ProWomanProLife could get an interesting exclusive interview with the former Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade. Imagine all the hits your blog would get then?
________________________________
John R. Sutherland, on Yeah, good question:
I read the article as well. I think of myself as a devout Christian, but if you were to look at my own blog (johnonlife.blogspot.com) you would see that the majority of my posts are written in non-religious language suitable for a pluralistic society. I had to learn to do this as a long-time public school trustee. I found in political life that Christian colleagues, by and large, were unable to discuss morally-charged issues without resorting to God-talk (I use the term respectfully). Thus they either didn’t address the issues at all, or they sounded very weak and unprepared in their argumentation.
To work effectively as a person of faith in a pluralistic environment, one must learn to:
1. Be bilingual; i.e., overt faith-language for the appropriate audience, and faith-informed but audience-appropriate language for groups of other faiths or no faiths.
2. Start from common ground. You don’t start arguments about moral issues with “Thus saith the Lord…” unless you have that worldview in common with your audience. If I were talking to a pro-choice group, for instance, I would start with full and equal women’s rights, which we all believe in, before I ever got to the various “means” of achieving those rights (in which they would include abortion but I wouldn’t).
Finally, I have found that many pro-life advocates define the term is such a way that it would almost be impossible to be pro-life (in their view) unless you were also anti-gay, anti-feminist, politically conservative and anti-contraception. Yet I know feminist pro-lifers, gay pro-lifers, Jewish pro-lifers, socialist pro-lifers, secular pro-lifers. We are all made in the image of God and something of that still resides in the principles and values found in common across racial, cultural and credal groups.
________________________________
Hanam, on Yeah, good question:
Good for you Brigitte! I couldn’t agree more.
I would dare to add that some pro-life people shy away from expressing themselves because they don’t belong into any group of practicing Christians. Nobody should be excluded from this debate on any grounds whatsoever.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Over before it began:
You are absolutely right about your point. To kill or not to kill that is the real question in this entire abortion debate.
This debate will only end when unborn baby children will be protected in their mother’s womb from conception to a natural death. It’s never over until the culture of death abortion agenda is over once and for all.
Rome wasn’t built in a day but as history clearly shows beyond a shadow of a doubt all great and powerful ancient civilizations collapsed from within when they lost their moral barometer.
________________________________
Hanam, on A callous sort of Canada:
This is regarding the comment left by Michael W.
So far the discussion on this blog was about the exchange of opinions in a civilized manner. Until now.
The information and discussions of this site should provide an intelligent exchange, not personal and ugly attacks on people who work hard to bring this topic to the light of the day.
________________________________
michael vickers, on Marginalizing us much?:
speaking of objectivity… i think that before you suggest that the demonstrators were really just average people from all walks of life, you should admit that many of the people interviewed in the video on the Sun website were savvy young operatives presented as ‘just plain folks.’
for example, Faytene Kryskow - the “one young woman” you referred to - is in fact a high-profile charismatic religious activist; a self-described “itinierant minister of Extreme Prophetic Ministries;” director of the MY Canada (http://www.4mycanada.ca) Christian youth religious advocacy organization, the driving force behind this year’s Cry gatherings; and a regular contributor to Bob Jones’ WSTK-ITV internet broadcasts.
so even though she may be rosary free (not a Catholic) and walker free (she just walks on water), she ain’t just anybody.
same goes for MYCanada intern, Sarah Sonne.
but you ladies know all this already, since you’re part of the same crowd assigned to put forward unthreatening, fresh-scrubbed, smiling faces — just as Andrea Mrozek did on TVO the other night — providing cover for those who are working feverishly to turn Canada into a theocracy.
I assume that writing this blog is part of Andrea’s job description at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
________________________________
Midas, on Hawks and abortion:
Crypto-totalitarianism comes in many guises, Christian pacifism being one of them. It cloaks itself in the garb of Jesus-speak and occupies the high moral ground of utopian non-violence and the soon-to-arrive peace in heaven on Earth. Language is the pacifist's cover for his lack of resolve to stand up to evil and defend self and the defenseless.
Does the pacifist have a death wish? He does, but not for himself. He expects his high moral ground to become his high command post, once the dust has settled and he has joined the victorious enemy in lording it over the vanquished.
Abortion is indeed a war waged "exclusively ... against women and children." It has claimed millions of lives already and the carnage continues. It is conceivable, even likely, that this war will not be won with words alone. Just as it took a bloody civil war to end slavery on this continent, and a world war to stop the Holocaust in Europe, it may take a shooting war to put an end to the evil of abortion. The pacifist will not participate, of course. Thus, his claim that only pacifists can be pro-life is the exact opposite of the truth - a fine example of Orwellian double-speak.
Moral equivalency abounds in Stackhouse's G&M article. Both sides in the abortion debate are declared equally "irrational" in their "irrational furor." By comparison, abortionist Morgentaler is merely "ever controversial." Stackhouse's high moral ground is in plain view.
And so, I, for one, am not "happy to stand beside them (the pacifists) to combat abortion." They are a treacherous ally who is ready to betray, once push comes to shove.
________________________________
C Jones, on A bit discouraging, what:
Public Opinion polls like this are notoriously tricky statistic’s to depend on. Often the questions are closed, leading and biased - to provide ammunition to whoever wants to pay for them. There is often the problem of “informed consent” and I have no confidence in the ability of most news organs to properly “frame” such questions - in fact they are often naively inane most of the time. A good start would be to INCLUDE a link to the actual “study”?
So in the Ipsos Reid poll, it seem reasonable to assume the question asked was “Do you support the nomination of H. Morgantaler for the Order of Canada? Your answer can be on scale of 1 - 5 where 1 indicates No support and 5 Strong support?” or was it something else?
The reason it matters is that if this was the case ALL ANSWERS ARE IN THE POSITIVE SPECTRUM, there was no “negative” options. What if I - as young male terrorized into submission by teachers since I began elementary school, and now my girlfriend for voicing my “real feelings” on “gender” issues - meant “I have no strong opinion”?
It may seem like splitting hairs, but would that become 1 or 2, and be translated as “Strongly or Moderately Opposed” in the newspaper account? What about ZERO for “No Opinion” - why was that not disseminated in the article. Was that percentage deleted and the responses re-calibrated to exclude such “difficult respondents”?
I mean there are lots of holes in these dumb articles which really aren’t world the newsprint they are printed on.
Finally, I have a sneaking suspicion that it has been very convenient for Harper to let the left bray its unbridled satisfaction on many issues like this as it merely galvanizes the outrage of weak conservative/right liberal middle-class voters, driving them into the arms of the Tory’s. Why get involved, lead with the electorate for once.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Rob Anders and his sign:
It’s amazing how much power one little letter has on Parliament Hill these days. I hope the Governor General of Canada takes her cue from what just happened to Mr. Anders and does in fact respond to all the letters she and her office have been receiving in recent days to revoke the awarding of the Order of Canada to Henry Morgantaler.
At least the GG’s Office should respect and respond to all those letters they have receiving from Canadians from coast to coast to coast just like the Government Whip responded to one letter on Parliament Hill.