A playwright seems annoyed by some of the criticism aimed at her play:
A Calgary playwright says her play about abortion aims to bring the two sides of the contentious debate together, not create more controversy.
[…]
Cawthorne is pro-choice, but hopes her play will make people on both sides of the abortion debate rethink their beliefs and develop empathy for women making a very difficult decision.
[…]
The president of the University of Calgary’s anti-abortion club said the play sounds “a little bit bizarre and tragic.”
Leah Hallman of Campus Pro-life said she respects Cawthorne’s artistic right to tell a story, but feels the Abortion Monologues is like telling the story of slavery without hearing from slaves.
“Because it’s forgetting the victims of abortion and that is the unborn,” she said.
Cawthorne counters that her pro-choice play includes the stories of women who choose not to have an abortion.
If that isn’t good enough for some, they should write their own play, Cawthorne said.
I don’t know anything about this playwright and her work, other than what I read in the article. I have no idea whether I’d like it or not. But it doesn’t matter what I think, does it? Because ultimately, if pro-lifers really want to influence the culture, they need to get in there and start creating their own plays. Or write their own blog posts. Or paint their own paintings. You get the point. I’m not sure I’d say it quite as, er, strongly as this blogger did, but I share the sentiment.
______________________
Andrea adds: Yes, she has a point. However, it’s almost inconceivable that a pro-lifer writing an abortion play would get the stage on any university campus. I suppose one could argue that almost every other play out there is a pro-life play, too, insofar as good theatre rarely celebrates death, but rather points to how we endure the struggle, aka life. I don’t mean to beat people over the head with my pro-lifeness, but really, when’s the last time you saw a great movie that started with death in the first minutes–and that’s all there was? What’s the old saying–all pro-choice activists are alive? Anyhoo. I’m quite sure pro-abortion activists probably don’t see it that way.
My other point would be that under duress (and media interviews always involve duress) Leah Hallman may not have come up with the world’s best quotable quotes. We do the best we can, under the circumstances.
by 
Hey, Brigitte,
What makes you and Kathy Shaidle state with such confidence that pro-lifers don’t write plays, paint pictures, produce documentaries and news stories? They do. Just visit such websites as LifeSiteNews.com and IgnatiusInsight.com to get a little taste of the creativity of pro-lifers.
Furthermore, how, exactly, does the lack of creative output mean a person cannot criticize or critique the creative output of another?
The playwright wishes to bring the two sides together. This is supposedly a noble goal. However, it begs the question, ‘Together about what?’. Is this a call for a full discussion on what each other are saying while looking at the pressures, procedures, supports, fetal development realities, optionas for pregnant women and consequences of abortion. It appears not. It is a play calling for people to ‘rethink their beliefs and develop empathy for women making a very difficult decision’. But what beliefs are to be ‘rethought’ ? Ones that don’t support the playwright’s position. What empathy is to be developed? One that supports the playwrights position. The play seems to be about erasing one side not bringing two sides together.
Kathy Shaidle’s post is naive, in that she completely discounts (or doesn’t know) the history of abortion in this country. She should inform herself of the lobbying efforts that began fifty years ago, with Chatelaine magazine, then with feminists putting pressure on politicians, to the era of Trudeau when even Morgentaler blackmailed him with correspondence.
How pro-lifers are supposed to win against tactics like that is beyond me. When people who have a pro-choice agenda are also people who are able to bring pressure to bear on politicians, you have an agenda that is going to get put through. There is no one on the pro-life side who has the ear of anyone with real political power, nor has there ever been.
The fact is that politicians in this country have inclined their ears to the pro-choice lobby and they have accommodated them; they have never done that for pro-lifers because doing so would not guarantee political success.
Kathy Shaidle has given a totally simplistic and juvenile response to a serious question. Shame on her.
Julie, you are the one who is naive.
I know all about the history of abortion in Canada. And one thing I know very well — but that people like you refuse to hear — is that you are clinging to tactics and strategies that are clearly not working.
Then you whine about people like me who dare to criticize them, because unlike you, we have not been “toiling in the trenches” (and accomplishing nothing) for all these years, polishing our martyrs’ laurels.
The irony is that pro-life is becoming a more popular position, but only in spite of, not because of, the Julies of this world. Between ultrasounds (that evil “science”) and movies like Knocked Up (that evil Hollywood), the people you are actually trying to reach are getting the message. While professional pro-lifers stick to their shabby old posters and plastic fetus dolls and “Our Blessed Mother” clip art and baby footprint lapel pins.
Maybe you don’t have the ear of political power because, as has been proven time and again in my personal experience, pro-lifers are notoriously unpleasant people to be around: culturally illiterate, socially inept and frankly not very bright.
Kathy, put the weapons down. Your point is well taken and we’ve all had bad experiences with a special kind of pro-lifer who does more harm than good. But so is Julie’s… which I pretty much already said in the body of the post.
Those who do more harm than good aren’t typically the ones to engage on this site because they are to begin with uncomfortable with our woman’s rights approach, and finally the “Canada without abortion. BY CHOICE.” Sure, we get a few, but generally our regular commentators, and Julie is one of them, aren’t the kind flinging plastic fetuses around or making themselves unlikeable. I’d hazard to say you’ve just insulted one of the good ones, as I’ve come to know Julie through emails and her comments.
So, no shame on either of you, I say. No one has the monopoly on a solution here. We live in a pro-abortion culture. We’re working on it. A round of kumbaya, anyone?