ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Maclean’s

Over before it began

by Leave a Comment

By now you’ve all read Andrew Coyne on the abortion debate. Good piece and I appreciate it. I’m all for a debate. “The debate is over” is a pretty constant refrain amongst abortion supporters. Translation: “I personally enjoy–and agree with–the status quo.”

When are issues truly “over”? Perhaps we can declare certain issues to be decided and done-like-dinner with the benefit of hindsight–I’m talking the benefit of decades, maybe a century. But nowadays we seek resolution within 22 minute sitcoms and anything longer is protracted, unwieldy, divisive–or “over.”

Now reopening what was never actually broached would be great. But it’s not the debate I look forward to. It is the moment when we all unify in our civilized society to understand that killing babies in the womb doesn’t solve our problems. Reopening the debate is certainly a step in the right direction, don’t get me wrong. But it’s certainly not a pro-life thing to do or say.  The United Kingdom–they debated indeed, and couldn’t manage to limit the killing to a point when we’re sure the child isn’t fully sentient and doesn’t experience pain (their abortion limit is 24 weeks, some fetal pain experts argue a baby suffers his or her own death at 20. I’m not a fetal pain expert, and that’s not my point.)

So what is my point this cranky Wednesday? My point is this: The debate is not the point. It’s killing babies in the womb (abortion) that’s the point. I will never agree that killing babies in the womb is a solution. So as long as I’m living, there will be at least one girl to counter this here current status quo. There are of course, many more like me.  That means an ongoing debate, and one that one round of legislation couldn’t possibly solve. Get ready. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

They didn’t go out of their way to publicize it…

by Leave a Comment

The Canadian Human Rights commission has quietly dismissed the case against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s. That’s semi good news. As Ezra points out:

… the sooner they can get the public scrutiny to go away, the sooner they can go about prosecuting their less well-heeled targets, people who can’t afford Canada’s best lawyers and command the attention and affection of the country’s literati.

What we need to is to shut down all institutions of thought-control in this country, period. There’s nothing like free and open debate to sort out truth from falseness, and good from evil.

____________________________

Andrea adds: And that’s the truth of it–the HRCs can now go and target the little guys with the wrong opinions. Some day that might be us. And that’s just fine by me seeing as a lawsuit against me means someone could come into possession of a very fine hybrid bicycle. I ponder the limitations on freedom of speech often enough. Just recently had a conversation with a well-read individual in a position of power who declared one of the most tumultuous and ongoing debates of our time (over the definition of marriage) to be a “closed question.” I’ll not get into details here, but that’s another way to stymie free speech–to declare unpopular debates closed and decided.

A difficult “hero,” indeed

by Leave a Comment

Abortion is a personal and private matter, unless you’re on a crusade to change the law, in which case writing the prime minister to highlight just who you’ve conducted abortions on is entirely appropriate. So desperate was Dr. Henry Morgentaler to legalize the practice that he wrote a personal letter to Dear Pierre detailing how he had done abortions on members of Trudeau’s family and other politicians…

 

The letter, reported on in Maclean’s and by Terry O’Neill, was written in August 1973.

____________________________

Brigitte is flabbergasted: How come everybody is so shy about using the term blackmail to describe, well, blackmail? He writes:

Do you know that in my clinic, I have helped wives, daughters, mistresses and relatives of members of the Federal and Provincial Cabinet, including some relatives of yours?

And then he says:

I also want to assure you that if I refer to prominent people having had safe abortions in my clinic it is not with the intention of embarrassing anyone but only to bring into stronger focus the hypocrisy and absurdity of the law.

I’m not buying it. Had I been in Trudeau’s shoes I certainly would have felt threatened by that letter. Which, as Terry O’Neil notes in his piece, “is perhaps a testament to the strength of Trudeau’s character that he refused to budge from his position, even though Morgentaler’s letter could be viewed as a none-too-thinly-veiled threat that, failing to amend the law, names would be named and alleged hypocrites exposed.” Indeed. You can say a lot of unflattering things about Trudeau (I have done so myself, more than once), but he was no pushover.

 

Not all strong women are CEOs

by Leave a Comment

Rose Rock, mom to comedian Chris Rock is interviewed in Maclean’s. She had ten kids, fostered seven and says this:

Q: You must have liked being pregnant.

A: I did. When I say that to people, they go, “What?!” But I loved the fact that God gave me that gift. I’ve never gotten over the feeling that I’m the first person that ever gave birth, because I’m so in awe of the fact that I have the ability to carry life. And everybody was so happy waiting for the baby, even the older children.

Sounds like a strong woman to me. Compare and contrast then, because I have to be a bitter pill somewhere, with those pro-choice activists who declare that “women are not incubators.” True enough… To them–women are not incubators, merely robots, capable of having sex, who then use their God-given gifts to sit at very important desk jobs.

I have to go push some paper now. Important paper, though.

One angry man

by Leave a Comment

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?

Please tell me this isn’t happening

by Leave a Comment

Don’t get me wrong: As a rule I’d rather pregnant teens kept their babies instead of going for abortions. But really, I’d much rather teens didn’t have to deal with such issues through the good old-fashioned trick of not getting pregnant in the first place. I didn’t use to think that made me a weirdo. Now I wonder…

__________________________________________

Andrea adds: I am flat out encouraged by what I’ll call the Juno phenomenon: Teens who understand what abortion is and refuse to go through with it. All these commentaries decrying the lack of abortion representation in Hollywood these days–I’ll have none of it. A pregnant teen is a problem. An abortion is a bigger problem. So is this idea that you can have sex and never get pregnant–that women can always prevent pregnancy. I’m going to go out on a limb and say something really controversial: Sex and pregnancy are linked. So long as all of us–teens, young women, young men–are encouraged to believe they can be separated, we’ll see teen pregnancies, and indeed pregnancies everywhere. I reject the notion that women can always prevent pregnancy, that there is a foolproof way to do so. We all know someone who was cautious, very cautious, and then got pregnant.

Sex education these days is a mess: who got the “Intimacy Pyramid” in grade nine phys ed? Ah yes, one is supposed to check off the level of intimacy one is comfortable with. At the bottom, holding hands and kissing. At the top–you know what (sex)– the idea being you could call it quits at any point in between. And that one step was unrelated from the other. I’m sorry, but it don’t work that way, especially not in high school.

Anyway–teens are the least likely to use contraception properly, and the least likely to be able to express at any point with a boyfriend or girlfriend: “Excuse me, but we are currently hitting a point in the intimacy pyramid that I’m uncomfortable with.”

We need to change channels on sex ed. But nonetheless, I’m glad we are seeing teens reject abortion. So they should. Nothing worse than hitting your 30s, finding you’ve spent your whole life preventing pregnancy, only to find now you want to get pregnant and can’t. That must be agonizing for those women who were encouraged to have an abortion.

So Brigitte–while I think I get what you are saying, I say this instead. Do tell me this is happening. Not the normalization or full out acceptance of teen pregnancy as a normal phenomenon, but the rejection of abortion as a fix-all.  

__________________________________________

Brigitte, er, clarifies: The headline on that Maclean’s cover story to which I linked is, “Suddenly teen pregancy is cool?” To which my answer is: Golly, I sure hope not!! Otherwise I agree with Andrea. But at the risk of exposing myself as a terminally old-fashioned and uncool person, I like to think 13- to 17-year-olds are better off studying, getting a job, playing sports and preparing themselves for a fulfilling life as a smart, educated woman, than they are testing the efficacy of various birth-control methods.

 ________________________________________

Andrea adds another two cents: Brigitte–terminally uncool is the woman who suggests babies have something to do with sex. I think you are doing okay- downright hip! With your clarification then we can agree: Teens are better off not having sex. But that’s where sex ed needs to change channels. Because (say it all together in singsong) “if they’re going to do it anyway,” they might as well have the “intimacy pyramid…” Right.

Meta