Take a look...

It's been ages since I've posted - lost of personal stuff I can't really talk about here.  However, I wanted to take a moment to share this.



At the time of this writing, it's actually at $1,996,595USD raised of $2,100,000 goal, 95% and 5 days left.  They are so close to raising the funding to tell the story the media has ignored.  Even pro-choicers should be clamouring to put an end to stuff like this (and Gosnell is by no means an outlier) and get this story told, if they truly believe in women's health and safety.

My budget is tight, but I just made a second $25 donation today, but donations as small as $1 can be made.  Every penny counts!  Please click on the graphic above and donate whatever you can afford.


Thank you.

A Disturbing Silence

A WaPo reporter explains her personal Gosnell blackout

But the thing is that I’m getting kind of sick of pointing out egregious bias only to see things not just remain bad but get worse. Just think, in the last year, we saw the media drop any pretense of objectivity and bully the Susan G. Komen Foundation into funding Planned Parenthood. And then we had how many months of coverage focused on someone calling a birth control activist a bad name? And who can forget every pro-life person in the country being asked to respond to Todd Akin’s stupid remarks about rape?

 I recommend taking the time to read the full article linked above, and following the links in it.  In reading it, I can actually feel Mollie's frustration in her writing.  But then, what honest journalist wouldn't be?

The lack of media coverage is not surprising, but it's not the only place where all we can hear are crickets chirping.  It's at the ground level, too.  The article mentions other controversies - Komen, Fluke, Akin - that the media did cover.  When those stories were running, people all over the place were commenting.  Social activist types I know were breaking out their protest signs and burning up their blogs with commentary.  I couldn't look at my facebook feed without hearing from pro-abortionists making snide updates on their statuses as well as loud commentary as they shared news articles, opinion pieces and blog posts about it.

Yet now?  Not a word.  Nothing.  Not only that but, unless I am looking specifically at pro-life blogs, groups or sites, I'm not hearing it from anyone else, either.

I can understand the silence of pro-abortionists.  The Gosnell case is proof that all their defenses for abortion have become meaningless.  If they really and truly support abortion "rights", then they cannot honestly say Gosnell did anything wrong, yet it's obvious to even the most shrill among them that what he did is wrong.  Not just a little bit wrong in the gray areas, but completely, horrifically, astonishingly evil.  If they condemn him, they condemn themselves, and they won't do that.

The silence that really disturbs me, however, is not coming from them.  The silence that really bothers me is the one from the pro-life side.  Where are they?  I realize my exposure to these groups on social media is quite limited, but even just on my own friends list and other contacts, I know there are many who are pro-life, even if they feared to admit it.  I know people on email groups that I'm a member of that are pro-life and would be willing to speak out of this were a story about, say, animal abuse or oil pipelines.   But these are babies.  Human babies being slaughtered.  Human mothers being damaged and sometimes killed.

By the hundreds.  Possibly more than a thousand.

This case should be enough to bring even those who are on the fence on the abortion issue over.  The horrors being revealed during this trial are sickening and shocking.  I understand why the news media aren't covering it, but why is it I'm still seeing more people upset over a story about pet abuses or fake stories about Monsanto?  What little I am seeing is in very specific sites; places that basically already serve the pro-life community.

I share a lot of stories on my facebook.  Sometimes, my shares result in conversations about climate change, politics, homosexuality - sometimes even abortion.  Yet with this story, for all the ones I've shared, I've had commentary from only ONE pro-abortion person I know, and this is a person who actually does believe Canada should have limits on abortion.  

Where is everyone else?? 

That is the silence that disturbs me most.

Apologetics Makes a Comeback Among Youth: Youth ministry sees the return of reasons.

Apologetics Makes a Comeback Among Youth: Youth ministry sees the return of reasons.

Challenging the cultural climate is a major component of the new apologetics, said Sean McDowell, head of Worldview Ministries. "The apologetics resurgence has been sparked ultimately by teens who are asking more questions about why people believe the things they do," he said. "Those who thought that kids in a postmodern world don't want an ideology were wrong."

 I've have been seeing some interesting cultural shifts of late, including among our youth and young adults.  It's something I've described seeing to people I've had debates with on various topics, but those I've mentioned it to do not see it.  I'm not surprised by that.  What they are seeing is what the mass media and certain alternative media that they follow want them to see.  They are seeing the results of popular polls and superficial trends.  In their eyes, religion is being destroyed by "science" and "rationality"; they see opinions towards SSM going in their direction, which they describe as "the right side of history" and other such meaningless catch phrases; they see the abortion issue as decided and beyond debate.  Everything around them is telling them that "their side" has won.

I follow enough of popular media to know what they are seeing - and who is telling it to them.  However, I follow both sides, and what I'm seeing is something very different.  Even as the mainstream media claims that the abortion debate is no debate at all, painting pro-lifers in the worst possible light, I am reading the blogs and articles and watching the videos of those who were there.  I am seeing the astonishing increase in people who are now openly and unwaveringly pro-life, even in the face of sometimes violent attacks from pro-abortion supporters.  In popular and social media, I see the assumption that people of science are all atheists, and the claims that religion is anti-science and ignorant.  The verbal attacks on those who hold religious views by those who claim to be "rational" and "scientists" are inevitably rude, crude, vile and completely unreasonable and unintellectual.  Meanwhile, I am seeing people of faith make polite, rational and evidentiary defences in the face of these attacks.  I read the papers, articles, books, blogs and reports written by men and women of both science and faith, and their careful claims blow away the irrationality of their attackers.  I am also seeing, in complete contradiction of the claims made by those who support SSM, a rise in support of traditional marriage - a rise based on logical argumentation, rationals discussion and evidence based claims.

In all cases, this shift that I am seeing is very much a grassroots thing, and the demographics are completely at odds with how the opposition portrays anyone who disagrees with them.  They are not the "old, rich white men of privilege" or "Christian bigots" and so on.  No, I'm seeing this shift happening across the board.  Men and women, rich and poor, of all colours, religions (or lack of them!), cultural backgrounds, even sexuality.

Most of all, however, I am seeing this shift increase among youth.  For all the social experimentation of our public schools, some youth are still managing to be exposed to both sides of issues.

And when they are, they are seeing through the politically correct shadows and lies, recognising truth for what it is, and taking a stand.

The Culture of Life and the Culture of Death: dueling conversations

The Culture of Life and the Culture of Death: dueling conversations | NRL News Today

Thanks to years of research, we now also see how abortion often involves coercion more than “choice,” and can and does result in significant long-term consequences for women, rather than solutions. Thanks to the courageous efforts of Silent No More, Rachel’s Vineyard, and others, we also see and hear through post-abortive women and men how they have suffered mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually from abortion.

Woman sues Ohio clinic over failed abortion after delivering healthy 'miracle' baby

 
Woman sues Ohio clinic over failed abortion after delivering healthy 'miracle' baby

My heart breaks for her child. How is she going to feel as she gets older and begins to understand that her mother tried to kill her?

h/t COTR

Former Abortion Provider Speaks

Wow.

Abortion Survey at Jeff Watson MP - Essex

Jeff Watson MP - Essex


There's a survey at the above link right now, asking for positions on abortion. Note that the default selection is for fully taxpayer funded abortions for any reason at any time, so be careful not to accidentally vote for a position you might not agree with.



At the time I'm posting this, the results are:

Which best describes your position:
4283 total votes

I support fully taxpayer-funded abortion, at any time in the pregnancy, for any reason at all;
66%

I support some legal restrictions on access to abortion, for example restricting full access to abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy;
8%

I support abortion for any reason but it shouldn't be taxpayer-funded;
1%

I support creative policy options and supports that help women with unexpected pregnancies keep the baby; or
3%

I support a complete ban on abortion.
21%

A Response to Why are Feminists So Angry?

or You just don't get it, do you?

Someone I know shared a link to a column on a website I've never heard of before.  Why Are Feminists So Angry is a transcript of the embedded video by Jessica Valenti . 

Here is my response to various points in the piece.

She begins by addressing the contents of a protester's sign; a comment I've seen fairly often, in one variation or another.  It reads "I can not believe I still have to protest this shit." 

By "this shit," the protester is apparently shocked that there are still people who have problems with this issue of abortion.  My answer to that would be, "I still cannot believe that, with all the evidence of medical technology, people still pretend that abortion is anything other than the killing of a human being."  It could also be, "I still cannot believe that, after 4 decades, we commit infanticide on a massive scale."  I could come up with quite a few other responses, but I'll leave it at that, for now.

She then goes on to talk about getting an email asking her, "why are feminists so angry?"  She begins with, "It’s not that I’m angry. I’m exhausted. The war on reproductive health and autonomy feels absolutely never-ending."

 Let me explain something to you, Ms. Valenti. 

There is no war on reproductive health and autonomy.

This may be difficult for you and other activists to understand, but that's because you've framed the narrative as being about things like "choice" and "reproductive rights" and other such claptrap.  Let me say this again.

There is no war on reproductive health and autonomy.

There is, however, a war against so-called feminists that are just activists who claim to speak on behalf of all women.  There is a war against the campaign of misinformation, indoctrination and destruction against women.  Yes, Ms. Valenti.  You see, more and more women are recognising that, hidden behind such euphemisms as "choice", thousands of women are having their reproductive health damaged, sometimes permanently.  More and more women are recognising that, when it comes to "pro-choice" activists such as yourself, women are being denied the information they need to give informed consent to an invasive, damaging and dangerous surgical procedure.

How ironic that Ms. Valenti laments that states are trying to implement laws requiring women get "transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions."  Now, I don't know that these proposed laws specify transvaginal ultrasounds, or just ultrasounds in general.  I think activists just as Ms. Valenti just love the idea of waving around (metaphorically or otherwise) a rather large wand to show just how invasive such a procedure is.  I happen to know exactly how invasive such an ultrasound it.  I've had one.  It was done to try and find the cause of the pain that sent me to the emergency room.  In the end, it didn't do that job - the giant cyst that decided to do the twist with my innards was found using external ultrasound. 

In other words, ultrasounds, transvaginal or otherwise, are a normal tool in health care.  When it comes to abortions, ultrasounds are used to guide the abortionist to the fetus, so that when he (or she, but female abortionists seem to be in the minority) inserts the vacuum, he can watch on the screen as he suctions the bits and pieces out.

What self-identifying feminists like Ms. Valenti neglect to mention is that abortion itself is an extremely invasive procedure, and ultrasounds are already used to do them.  What Ms. Valenti and her fellows are objecting to is the patient - the mother - seeing the images.  She wants to prevent women from being informed as to what is actually in their uterus before they expunge it. 

She wants to deny women the information needed to give truly informed consent.

Yet Ms. Valenti and her peers claim it is those who are proposing these laws that are somehow against reproductive health.

Ms. Valenti then says, "I’m exhausted thinking about the fact that I’m still fighting a battle that my mother marched for."

To which I find myself wondering; if Ms. Valenti's mother had access to the information we now have about the grown and development of the human conceptum, would she still have marched for its destruction?

Lucky for Ms. Valenti, her mother didn't take advantage of her "rights" while pregnant with her.

Ms. Valenti goes on to say, "One provision in Arizona allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman about her pregnancy if they think it might compel her to get an abortion. So if your pregnancy is in danger, if your fetus has an abnormality—a doctor could keep you in the dark and that would be absolutely legal."

How curious that, right ofter claiming her shock that doctors might have to provide women with information gained from an ultrasound, she's how shocked that doctors might withhold information?  One again, Ms. Valenti neglect to inform, herself. 

Just what medical information is there that a doctor might withhold in the belief that, given that information, "it might compel her to get an abortion."  Certainly not information that would actually endanger her life.  Do you know, Ms. Valenti, what sort of information that might be?  I can think of one in particular: gender.  Sex selective abortion is on the rise, with perfectly healthy and normally developing fetuses are aborted because of their gender.  Take a guess which gender is most likely to get aborted?  Why, female ones, it turns out.  There is, in fact, a rising gendercide happening around the world, with increasing numbers in Canada and the US.  How does a self-proclaimed feminist get around the fact that being female is a such a death sentence? 

As for "an abnormality," this is another issue entirely.  Eugenics.  Pro-choice advocates seem to be claiming some sort of moral high ground when they promote aborting fetuses that are "abnormal."  Downs Syndrome babies are the ones at greatest risk, but all developing children who are less than perfect are at risk.  Do "feminists" such as Ms. Valenti truly believe that the disabled are unworthy of life?  How do these pro-choices feel about cases where parents have chosen to abort children over such minor deformities such as club feet or, in one Canadian case involving a late-term abortion (and IVF pregnancy, no less) due to a cleft palate?  Do these feminists truly believe that only perfect babies should be allowed to be born?  Considering the attacks on Sarah Palin for not aborting her son with Downs Syndrome, just as one prominent example, it seems to me that the answer is yes.

What else shocks Ms. Valenti?  How about this.  "I’m shocked that when Ohio tried to pass their anti-choice heartbeat bill that would outlaw abortions as early as six weeks, they had a fetus “testify” by giving pregnant woman an ultrasound in front of the House. The pregnant woman didn’t speak, appropriately enough—only her fetus was allowed to make an appearance."

Yes, heaven forbid we use actual science and medical technology to make such a monumental decision.  How else is a fetus to "testify" as to its humanity?  And in mentioning that the mother didn't speak, does Ms. Valenti think that she was somehow forced to be there, against her will?  Did it not occur to Ms. Valenti that the mother was there precisely because she *wanted* her child to be given that voice activists such as Ms. Valenti would deny it?

Curious that Ms. Valenti frames this bill as being "anti-choice," while apparently wanting to deny the courts the "choice" of using medical technology to make a decision, or the mother the "choice" of allowing her child to "testify" in court.

What else shocks Ms. Valenti?  This.  "I’m shocked that in one county in North Carolina, the county board of commissioners unanimously voted to turn down a state grant that would cover birth control."

Is it really necessary to point out the no one is preventing women from getting birth control?  They voted to not pay for it with a state grant.  There is no reason for the state to be using taxpayer dollars to pay for something that is not medically necessary.  Is it really necessary, for someone who claims to support reproductive health, to point out that hormonal birth control actually harms women's health (not to mention the environment)?   Hormonal birth control takes a healthy, fertile body and chemically induces infertility.  That is the opposite of health care.  If a women still wants to do it, she can pay for it herself, or she can avail herself of the many places out there that will provide it for free.  For someone who claims to be all about "choice," Ms. Valenti would have choice taken away from taxpayers, many of whom would rather not have to pay for someone else's birth control.  It seems that self-proclaims feminists want to have choices, but want others to be responsible for the costs or consequences.

Ms. Valenti is not just shocked.  She's also sad.  "Sad knowing that the people these laws will affect the most are the ones that need care the most—they’re the most marginalized among us: young people, women of color, low-income women, those that can’t afford to travel across the state or to take days off of work to access care."

No, Ms. Valenti.  They are not being denied access to care. Access to abortion or birth control is not synonymous with medical care. This may come as a surprise to you, but there are a great many clinics out there that will provide women with crisis pregnancies in the US with medical care for free.  They continue to help women who need it after their babies are born, too.  And no, these are not "fake" clinics that "lure" women, as their opponents so shrilly claim.

What else saddens Ms. Valenti? "I’m sad that women’s health and lives have become secondary to their ability to conceive."

Here, Ms. Valenti is once again framing the narrative in a dishonest way.  No, their health and lives are NOT secondary to their ability to conceive.  Pregnancy is not a disease, and our ability to conceive is not a burden.  Self-proclaimed feminists would have women believe that becoming pregnant is the worst thing that can happen to them; that it's a life-destroying event, and that having a child when they're not "ready" is a tragedy.

This particular view is actually quite offensive and degrading.  It basically says that women are physically weak and fragile, and psychologically incapable of raising a child until some magical line is crossed and they are suddenly "ready" to have a child.  It's demeaning and infantilizing.

Ms. Valenti then goes off with some extreme examples and bombastic claims, as if they were at all the norm, making it seem as if the only reason women get abortions at all is for medical need, when the reality is the opposite.  She's sad, she's angry, she's furious. 

The then asks her email writer, "—the real question is not why am I angry; the real question is, why aren’t you?"  Then, after defending the abortion mill, Planned Parenthood, she has the gall to say, "It’s about affirming our basic humanity."

Because, Ms. Valenti, we don't agree with you.  We think you and your fellow "feminists" are the ones who don't get it.  You claim that you do what you do out of love and compassion.  We don't believe you. 

The problem, Ms. Valenti, is that you are denying someone else their basic humanity.  You are denying someone else their body autonomy.  You are denying a developing child it's very life.  The word fetus is not a word used to describe a tumor or a clump of cells.  It's not a word that describes some part of a woman's body.  It's a word the describes a developmental stage of a human being. 

Planned Parenthood, in particular, is not the bastion of kindness and compassion you paint it out to be.  It is an unethical organisation that is responsible for incredible harm to women.  They claim to be about women's health, but are nothing more than an abortion mill. 

Ms. Valenti, you express your exhaustion, shock, sadness and anger that you and other self-proclaimed feminists are still fighting the battle you thought you'd won 40 years ago with Roe vs Wade.  Would it surprise you to know that Roe vs Wade was based on a lie?  That "Roe", Norma McCorvey, was coerced into lying that she was raped?  That she never had an abortion and is now fighting to have the ruling that bears her name overturned?

Ms. Valenti, your cause is based on lie upon lie; that this issue is about "choice."  That it's about "reproductive health."  That it's about "women's rights."

What you and other "feminists" don't seem to get is that people are starting to learn the truth.  They are beginning to realize that the fetus is not irrelevant.  That a woman's "private choice" has very public consequences.  That there is another person involved; a person who has been denied their very humanity in the name of "choice."

Modern medical technology has made it impossible to deny that a human fetus is an individual, separate yet dependant upon its mother.  It is a living being with its own brain waves and its own heart beating its own blood through its own veins.  It reacts to stimuli.  It feels pain. 


Where is your love and compassion, Ms. Valenti, for that other human that's involved when it comes to "choice"? 

At the beginning, you talk about how you can't believe you're still fighting this battle after all these years.

What you're not getting is that you are fighting a battle that's built on illusion.  To frame the battle as being about "reproductive health" and so on is your deception.  The curtain is being pulled back and the truth is being revealed.  The truth of millions of lives, with all their potential, snuffed out.  The truth of millions of women irrevocably harmed by the lie of "choice." 

To be honest, I don't expect you and your type of "feminist" to get it.  You have too much invested in your illusion.  Part of that illusion is that your "side" is the one that's got the best interests of women at heart; that your position is the one that's compassionate and loving, even as it destroys the lives of thousands upon thousands of women. 

Meanwhile, more and more people are getting it.  They are recognising that the real war against women is the one that demeans their intelligence, denies them information, lies to them about the consequences of "choice" and tears into their bodies, their minds and their souls. 

The real war against women is the one you are waging.

Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her child | LifeSiteNews.com

Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her child | LifeSiteNews.com

Todd Akin and Manufactured Controversies

There are two things about the Todd Akin controversy that amazes me.  1) that it happened at all (especially considering the complete lack of controversy over Biden's recent bout of foot-in-mouth-disease) and 2) that it's still going on.

When I first saw the headlines after Akin's interview, I could see right away that there was a case of how not to report the news going on again.  The headlines made it obvious.  Virtually every headline had the words "legitimate rape" in it, in quotes, followed by claims that Akin said women who've been rapes "don't", "won't" or "can't" get pregnant.  A few had some variant of how women can somehow "shut down" their bodies if they're raped to prevent pregnancy.

Of course, with headlines like that, people were in full freakout mode.  I expected that from the political left, of course.  They'll freak out over the most minor of gaffes by those on the political right, while pretending the most heinous comments from their own side never happened, or simply brush them off as irrelevant.  What amazed me is the vicious attacks from those on the political right.  From what I've seen (and I admit, I've missed a lot of it) the attacks on Akin from his fellow conservatives has far exceeded the attacks from his liberal opponents.

The problem is, everyone seems to be freaking out over what they think he said, or some projection of what he apparently meant when he said it.

What was it that he actually said?  Well, see for yourself.



Here's the transcript of his actual words.

Well, you know, people always want to try and make that as one of those things... "Well, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question?"
It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. Let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment. But the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

And then all hell broke loose.  But why?  What did he say that was really so wrong or terrible?  Let's look at the key phrases everyone is blowing a gasket over one part at a time.

"...from what I understand from doctors that's really rare."

Okay.  So what's controversial about that?  Pregnancy from rape is rare.  He's not saying it doesn't happen, as so many headlines and commentators have claimed.  He just said that doctors have told him it's rare.  How rare?  Well, that's difficult to say, since rape statistics are understandably questionable in the first place (more on that below).  What percentage of rapes result in pregnancy?  There have been many claims that the pregnancy rate in rape cases is the same as for consensual sex, but I'm not seeing any legitimate data to back those claims up.  Then there's this example.

Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.

Eugene F. Diamond, MD

Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine

April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine

Now, that's old data in just one area, but I don't know that women in Minnesota are any more or less fertile then women in other parts of the US, and while the number of reported rapes may have changed, I have not seen anything to suggest the percentage of pregnancies as a result of rape has increased since then.

So basically, then, his first statement - that pregnancy due to rape is rare - is true.  He didn't say it doesn't happen, or that he doesn't believe raped women get pregnant.  Obviously, he knows it happens, and that is reflected in the interview.  Yet if you read only the headlines, you'd think he said that rape due to pregnancy doesn't happen, which is clearly false.

What's the next part?  Ah, yes.  This one.

"If it's a legitimate rape..."

People are just losing their heads over the use of the word "legitimate."  There are all sorts of accusations that he was somehow implying that there's rape, and then there's rape-rape.  Kinda like Whoopi Goldberg.



Now if only people had flipped out over Whoopi's comments the way they are now over Akin's comments, because hers were far more condescending and insulting to rape victims!

What confuses me is how anyone could have any confusion about the use of the word "legitimate."  To be honest, I think Akin's detractors know full well what he was talking about, but it's far more satisfying to get all offended and pretend he was saying something else.  It fits into the "Republican War on Women" narrative so much better.

For those who still refuse to see the obvious, he's talking about ... well, legitimate cases of rape vs things like false accusations or false claims of rape. 

Here is where things get muddy.  Rape statistics are unclear at the best of times.  Part of the problem is that there is an unknown number of women who never report their rapes, or report them years after the event.  It's said that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted (all types of sexual assault, not only rape) in their life time, which is meaningless, since it's a prediction.  Then there's the problem of false rape reports.  Again, it's hard to know how many false rape claims there are.  On one end of the spectrum, it's claimed that only 2 percent of reported rapes are false (which is higher then the percentage of abortions due to rape).  Yet a US Dept of Justice report from 1996 found that about 25-26% of rape cases were proven to be false!

So here we have a problem of there being an unknown number of unreported rape cases, coupled with what may be as much as 25% of reported rapes being proven false (some have claimed that number is actually as high as 51%, but I don't find it reliable).  It's entirely possible the unreported vs false accusations cancel each other out, but there's no way to know.

To further mess up the numbers, there's also statutory rape, which can include consensual sex as well as forcible or coercive rape.

In other words, when it comes to rape statistics, we really do need to know what is, or isn't, "legitimate" rape!

In context of the interview, this sort of thing was obviously what he was referring to.  The headlines would have us believe he was somehow claiming that rape victims weren't really raped, or somehow making light of the seriousness of the crime committed against rape victims.  Personally, I think that's a stretch.  It does make me wonder, though.  Just how could he have been more clear?  Some have suggested that he should have just said "rape" without any qualifiers, but in context of the interview, that would have actually made his statement worse.  So what would be a more appropriate word to us?  Real?  Authentic?  True?  Actual?  I can think of a lot of potential adjectives, but they all end up making his statement sound worse, too.

Which leaves us back with the word "legitimate."  Personally, I can't think of a better, less offensive, way to differentiate between actual rape events and false claims. 

Which leads us now to the next part that has people's heads spinning.

"... the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Wow, have the responses been over the top to this part!  Akin is accused of all sorts of things, from being stupid, unscientific, and crazy, to associating him with Nazi experiments and linking him to some bizarre claim from the past that "spastic tubes" somehow prevent pregnancy.

First, let's make it very clear what he ISN'T saying.  He is NOT saying women who have been raped do not, cannot or will not get pregnant.  That's what's in the headlines and in the interpretations.  That's not what he said.  He is also not suggesting that women have some magical ability to voluntarily make their bodies prevent pregnancy during rape.  Again, that is something others are claiming is meant, but it's not what he actually said.

Is there any truth to the statement?

Actually, yes, and it's been known for ages.  Long before we knew about the chemicals our bodies produce, and the roles hormones play in reproduction in particular, it was known that trauma and high levels of stress can affect a woman's ability to conceive and/or prevent miscarriage.  Such things affect male fertility, too, but when it comes to women, our bodies actually do have ways to prevent pregnancy when conditions are not optimal for conception.

First, there are the effects of stress on the reproductive system.  This can be long term stress, of it can be stress from a single traumatic event. 

The female body is, from a purely biological point of view, a baby making machine.  We are awash with chemicals and hormones that are there to ensure optimal fertility.  That may not be true as individuals but, as a general statement for healthy women, that's how our bodies work.  Aside from stress, a number of things can trigger our bodies into becoming hostile to conception.  Nutritional deprivation is one such example.  When we're starving, women are less likely to conceive, and if we do conceive, we're more likely to miscarry.  Likewise, if we have too much or too little of specific nutrients, it can prevent pregnancy.  I remember seeing an interview, several decades ago, with a doctor from a Toronto fertility clinic.  He talked about how most of his patients didn't need extreme interventions such as IVF; most needed to only make minor lifestyle changes.  He described two cases to illustrate.  One couple he treated lived an extremely "healthy" lifestyle.  They were both marathon runners, and were in peak physical condition, yet they could not conceive.  In the end, it turned out the wife did not have enough body fat.  They relaxed their marathon training regimen, gained some body fat, and promptly got pregnant.  Another woman he described was also a "healthy" eater.  He talked about how one of the first things he did was look at the palms.  When he saw this woman's palms, he noted a distinct orange cast to them.  As he talked to her, he learned that she had read a lot about antioxidants and had been supplementing with beta carotene.  For some reason, she was taking very high amounts of it, which is why her palms started to turn orange.  She stopped taking the excessive supplements and was soon pregnant.

Calorie restriction can also affect fertility.  Our bodies can't tell the difference between starvation due to famine or starvation due to dieting.  It can tell when we are not getting enough nutrition to support a pregnancy, causing changes in our chemical balance that make it more difficult to conceive.

These are just a few examples of ways our bodies create conditions to prevent pregnancy by shutting down our reproductive system.  In the context of Akin's interview, it is the stress related responses of our bodies that kick in, creating conditions hostile to conception.  Such conditions also cause miscarriages and prevent lactation.  This is old news.

Do women still get pregnant, even in non-optimal conditions?  Obviously we do, and he never claimed we didn't.  He just said that our bodies "try to shut that whole thing down."  Which is accurate.  Sometimes, it fails.  The idea that he was suggesting women can somehow control whether or not they can become pregnant is ludicrous, but that doesn't stop people from making that assumption.

Now, I have no idea who Akin is and, frankly, I don't care all that much.  What I do care about is accuracy and truthfulness.  I've seen his interview and compared it to the many headlines and column inches dedicated to tearing him apart, and it bothers the heck out of me.  The attacks against him are inaccurate, in that they claim he said things he didn't, and dishonest in how they extrapolate meanings to what he said that are, at best, pure conjecture or, at worst, deliberate misrepresentation for the purpose of destroying him both personally and politically. 

Was what he said clumsy, "misspoken" and or insensitive?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  I think the "shut things down" part of what he said was clumsy and unclear, but only to those who don't know anything about the effects of stress on the reproductive system. 

Was what he said false?  No.  Though he was repeating what he says he was told by doctors, and he was in no position to expand on the claims during the interview, his actual statements were correct.

Of course, you won't know that by the headlines. 

With all the focus on one sentence of what he said, people are completely forgetting about the closing sentence.

You know, I think there should be some punishment. But the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

People are completely ignoring what he's pointing out here, which is that it is the rapist that did something wrong and should be punished for it.  This brings up the obvious question for pro-abortionists using the rape and incest argument: Why should any child conceived in rape be killed because of what the father did?




 

Boycott to Buycott - or game changer?

Starting a post at 1:30 am is probably not a good idea, but I wanted to take a moment and post about some observations I've noted in the past few months.  We're still in the busiest time of year for my family and it won't slow down for a couple more months (at least I hope it will!), and I haven't been on top of things like usual.  Even so, I've still managed to hear about some of it.

I haven't been living under a rock enough to miss out on the Chick-fil-A fiasco, and it's been fascinating to see how things have played out.  Being in Canada, we have no Chick-fil-A's, so it's has no effect on us, but there's no shortage of Canadians weighing in on the whole thing anyhow.

What I find the most interesting is comparing the Chick-fil-A boycott is comparing it to others I've seen. Especially after I saw someone sharing this on Pinterest.

My first thought when I read this was along the lines of "that's not quite how things unfolded."  It's a pretty typical strawman response, though; portray an alternate to reality, then attack the alternate as if it were the reality.

Right off the top, in the above example, whoever made this used the term "anti-gay rights organizations", which in itself is a strawman.  Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else in Canada and the US.  What gay "rights" activists and their supports want are for the restrictions of granted rights to be removed so as to accomodate a tiny sub-group - plenty of whom disagree with the activists that claim to speak for them - forcing the rest of society to redefine it's foundational institutions while at the same time endorsing their proclivities.  This isn't about equality - we have that.  It's about special treatment and recognition.

Now, let's take the list at the top.  Right off the top, we can write off the Electronic Arts one, which was faked.   The end statement is accurate.  They (whoever "they" are) are indeed exercising their free speech.

Let's use the JC Penny example, simply because I'm more familiar with it.  JCPenny hired Ellen Degeneres (or, uh, "Degeneress").  Personally, I don't see understand what the big deal is with her; my few attempts at watching her show left me decidedly unimpressed, but so does most TV.  I don't find her funny or interesting.  Actually, I find her boring and bland and, quite frankly, I think more people watch her show because she's a lesbian and want to prove they're not haters then out of any real interest, but that's just me.

Now, JC Penny can hire whomever they want.  They are free to do that.  The One Million Moms (OMM) group made a statement and called for a boycott.  I thought that was a rather bad idea, but again, they are free to do that.  You know; freedom of speech and all.  What was interesting was the fall out from that.  The level of pure, head exploding hatred levelled against this group was pretty amazing.  Of course, anyone who disagrees with anything gay activists demand are labelled "anti-gay", "homophobe", "bigot", "intolerant" and "haters."  Which is really funny to see, considering the terrible things they themselves were saying against the group or anyone who doesn't cave in to their demands.  Now, if someone actually called for gays to be hung (as in one of the images above), I would have a problem with that.  For someone to say that gays are "possessed by demons," well, that's free speech, too, and I'd just laugh and think they were idiots.  I don't actually see the context of any of the images across the top of that graphic, though, except for the first one with Ellen, and the use of the term "anti-gay moms" is just another illustration of what I'm talking about.

The point is, however, people who support traditional marriage are allowed to say so.  Doing so doesn't make them "anti-gay" or "haters," but hey, that's free speech, too.  One group can call for the boycott, others can condemn them for it.  And condemn them, they did, with a level of hatred far exceeding the perceived hatred coming from the OMM, and that's when things started to cross the line.

JCPenny, however, seemed to enjoy their notoriety and went a step further.  Hiring Ellen, after all, had nothing to do with her being a lesbian.  For Father's Day, they were more blunt.  Sort of.  That's when they put out an add featuring two guys with kids.  When I saw the add, I actually just assumed it was a couple of male models posing as dads with their kids.  The image I saw was difficult to read, so I completely missed the bit at the end that revealed that the two guys in the photos were a couple, posing with their own children.

At this point, I think JCPenny was counting on OMM, or some other group, to object, because of the surge of support they got with Ellen.  I saw plenty of people condemning OMM, and again, the level of pure hatred aimed at them was startling.

I also saw plenty of people claiming they would shop at JCPenny to support them.  I'm not sure that that actually translated into increased sales for JCPenny.  I've read claims that their sales dropped significantly as a result of the boycott, but I've also read claims that their sales soared.  I don't think either is true.  I expect they got a modest increase, and then everyone promptly forgot about it.

Then there was Oreo.  This was interesting, because the ONLY reason I found out about the rainbow Oreo cookie ad was from people who posted about it or shared the image, slagging "homophobic" groups that were calling for a boycott of Oreo because of their support of gay activists.  I actually had not seen any of these calls for boycotts at all.  I'm sure they were there, but whoever they were, they got more publicity from those condemning them then they ever would have otherwise.

As soon as I saw the ad, though, my thought was that the marketers at Oreo saw what happened with JCPenny and figured publicly stating they supported gay activist causes, inviting controversy, would result in a surge of supprt - and sales - from gay activists and their supporters.  I don't know how well that worked out for them.  The people I saw voicing their support for Oreo say they planned to buy more Oreos, but there were so few of them, and I didn't see anyone claim they already had, because of this.  Personally, I think Oreos are kind of gross, unless they're in ice cream. ;-)

Now lets go to the second part of the graphic, where is points out the percieved hypocrisy of how the call to boycott Chick-fil-A is "infringing on... free speech."

That's where the maker of this little bit of catch phrase activism gets it wrong.  Gay activists are free to call for a boycott.  Likewise, others are free to condemn them for it, just as the activists were free to condemn OMM for wanting to boycott JCPenny.

Calling for a boycott was never the problem.

The first problem was that the boycott was based on a lie.  Many lies, actually. The owners of Chick-fil-A are well known for being supporters of traditional marriage.  This is not news.  Of course, the activists translate this as being "anti-gay" and "hate speech," etc.  This recent controversy, however, was based on the CEO of Chick-fil-A saying "guilty as charged" in an interview, which was re-written as him saying he was against gay marriage.  The thing is, he was never even asked about gay marriage.  The conversation had nothing to do with gay marriage.  If anything, it was anti-divorce.  No one it going around saying he was "anti-divorcee", however, or that he "hates divorced people."  Becuase that would be a lie, too.

So the whole thing was a manufactured controversy, right from the start.

The other problem is the claims by pro-gay activists that Chick-fil-A - the company - was discriminatory.  It was claimed that their policies were discriminatory and anti-gay.  That's just plain slander.  If, as a company, Chick-fil-A refused to hire gay people, they'd have a case, but they *do* hire gay people.  If, as a company, they refused to serve gay customers, again, they'd have a case.  Of course, they do no such thing.  What these activists and their supporters have done was not just twist around the actual statements made by the CEO of the company into something else entirely, but they're outright lying about the company itself.

That still isn't quite restricting the free speech of the CEO.  What *is* restricting free speech is the demands of activists to punish the company for the personal beliefs of the CEO.  When politicians promise that they will not approve new restaurants in their areas because the personal beliefs of the CEO is not what their own personal beliefs demand, it's actually illegal.  Yes, even fascist.  This is government officials abusing their powers to force private individuals to change their beliefs, or keep those beliefs to themselves.  Many of these activists, who so loudly claim they are for "equality", "equal righs" and "tolerance" not only fully supported this abuse of power, they demanded it. To them, this dictatorial behaviour was "noble" and "brave."

To be fair, I saw some people who started out supporting the boycott of Chick-fil-A draw the line here.  This, however, is where the gay activists lost the game.  This is on top of the most vile and hateful attacks being aimed at Chick-fil-A, all because of something the CEO didn't actually say.  Foul language is pretty standard for these sorts and, unfortunately, so is wishing death and all manner of terrible things (Rosanne Barr's tweet being the most infamous) on the CEO, his family, his employees and their customers.  There have even been bomb threats.

It was the same level of vitriol aimed at OMM, but this time, the attackers were the ones calling for the boycott.

So, first was have the "anti-gay organization" calling for a boycott of a company because of their corporate level support of gay marriage (I have no idea what the private beliefs of anyone involved are).  Yes, that's free speech.  Then we have the pro-gay activists and their supporters condemning the boycotters, while claiming they are haters, bigots, homophobes, etc. for supporting traditional marriage.  That is also free speech.

Now we have the pro-gay activists calling for a boycott of a private company because of personal opions of the CEO, which were misquoted and misrepresented, in the process declaring him anti-gay, homophobic, a hater, etc.  It is falsely claimed that the company discriminates against gays.  When people step up to support the company, they too are called haters and bigots and homophobes, along with wishes of illness, pain and death, even though the people supporting the company and its CEO includes gays.  These people absolutely tried to infringe on the free speech of the CEO through bullying tactics, and some were willing to do so illegally through dictatorial abuse of political power.

What's the fall out?

Well, the calls to boycott JCPenny and Oreo seem to have fizzled out of the limelight, as have the calls for a buycott to support these companies for their support of gay activist demands.

The Chick-fil-A boycott seems to have backfired completely!  The bullying tactics used by the pro-gay activists were stood up against.  I began seeing comments everywhere from people saying that they had gone to Chick-fil-A to support free speech.  I saw people saying they'd never gone before, and even some who said they'd spent the last of their money before payday, to support the company and stand up to the attacks against it.  I read people describe how they went several times a week - some every day - when they had only occaisionally gone before.  I heard from others saying that they were gay, but they still went to Chick-fil-A because of the what the boycotters were saying and doing.  Over and over again, I heard people describe restaurants packed, some so full they couldn't get in at all, with drive through line ups that wrapped around the block.



(h/t Blazing Cat Fur)
Then there was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and the response is out of this world!

Watching all this has served to confirm some of my other observations.  For all that SSM is legal in Canada now, and polls in the US supposedly show that support for SSM has increased over the years (this despite the fact that ever state that put it to a vote has maintained the definition of traditional marriage), the tide may be turning.  Just as the abortion issue, which was supposed to be a done deal, is now seeing a resurgance of opposition as more and more people recognise the damage it does to society, people are starting question the notion that accepting SSM is benign.

It had been my belief that SSM would eventually be accepted in general, though at the cost of personal and religious freedom for anyone who dared challange it.  I thought it would follow the typical pattern I see elsewhere.  After acceptance, it would take years - probably a generation or two - before the damage we were told would never happen would be recognise, and then eventaully a backlash would begin.  That is the state the abortion issue is at now.

Oddly, I think the Chick-fil-A fiasco has become a game changer.  There is an unexpected momentum in the backlash to the gay activists.  We've already got evidence showing that SSM hasn't resulted in sunshine and roses for all, and that there is, in fact, quite a lot of damage resulting from even the most stable of SS relationships.  Now, as the totalitarian behaviour of pro-gay activists crawls out into the open, people have noticed, and large numbers are standing up to it.  Not by protesting or becoming angry, but by going out, having fun and buying chicken.

Is it possible that the humble chicken sandwich can become the final straw that revealed the hypocrisy of activists who are trying to redefine our society into their own image?

update:

Check out Bigotry and Chick-Fil-A

Give this a watch, for those still under the delusion that allowing gay marriage won't affect everyone else.



Also, When hating on Chick-fil-A, try to hide it better.

Watch if you dare.

Is Canada's medicare system "socialist?"

First, my apologies for not responding to folks who've left comments.  I've been recovering from surgery, but do intend to catch up soon and respond to specific points.

Until then...

I recently shared a video I found rather funny on my facebook.  This one.



A friend of mine, who happens to be on the liberal side of things, called me on it, saying that she's sure I cash my child tax benefit checks, and aren't I glad we have socialized medicine, so I haven't had to go bankrupt with my recent hospitalization?

Well, I will gladly give up the child tax benefit if it means we'll be taxed less.  Until then, I'll take my (or should I say, my husband's) tax dollars back where I can.  It's a pittance compared to what the government is taking off his pay to start with, never mind all the other taxes and fees we get dinged with every time we turn around. 

As for our medical system, I question defining as socialist at all.  In Canada, we have a mix of private and public care, and what's covered is determined not by the federal government, but by the provinces.  Some provinces even have premiums.  A good example of public/private co-operation was my breast reduction, several years ago.  Because it was deemed medically necessary, the surgery was paid for my our medicare system, but the plastic surgeon that performed it ran a private practise.  Other women paid for the same surgery themselves.  My medical needs did not cover getting a liposuction (to get rid of the "wings" under my arms), as that was considered purely cosmetic.  I could have paid almost $1000 for a purely cosmetic procedure.  I chose not to.

Let's take a moment, however, to look at our more recent medical needs.

Our family GP: private practise (our check ups are covered, but if I want to get a planters wart removed, I'd have to pay for it myself)
Our prescriptions: private insurance or pay for them ourselves
The clinic we usually go to for blood work and Xrays (no appointment necessary): a franchise
The clinic my husband used to get an MRI on his leg (no appointment necessary): another franchise.  In fact, it was located in what I can only call a medical mall, filled with private practises for types of care I'd never heard of before!
The clinic my gynecologist works in: private practice.  It's the same clinic I got my mammogram at.

The hospital I had my surgery: publicly owned

So far, that doesn't sound much like a socialist system!

So what does sound socialist?



A system that doesn't allow a family to arrange their own finances and medical needs to such a point that they'd be better off getting a divorce - the very situation my friend who called me on the video is in.

Or the situation another friend of mine is in.  Her doctor has prescribed for her a specific medication, but the bureaucrats won't cover it.  Not because it's an unapproved medication, but because... well... because she can't walk.  If she were still walking, the medication would be covered, but she's now a quad, so they won't.  At $1400 a month, she can't afford the medication.  She can appeal; a process that can take months. 

She's getting her medication, though.  The Evil Capitalist (TM) manufacturer is providing it for her anyway, on compassionate grounds, while she jumps through the hoops to get our medicare system to cover it.

What else sounds like socialism?  Procedures and practises being covered for political reasons, rather than medical need.  Such as some provinces covering sex reassignment surgery on perfectly healthy bodies.  If a patient wants the surgery, they should be free to pay someone to do it, but unless there's a medical need for it, it should not be covered by the medicare system.  Likewise, non-medically necessary abortions are covered the same as medically necessary ones.  Then there's things like the free needles for drug addicts, while diabetics have to pay for theirs.

Clearly, our system needs improvement.  Personally, as much as I appreciate our medicare system, I think we could do with more private partnerships and more personal choices available, less bureaucracy, and less political interference. 

What we need to be on guard for is actual socialization of our medicare system, such as the calls to restrict treatment based on things like body size or smoking.  We need to be on guard to avoid situations such as those in the UK, where patients are being denied medically necessary surgery because they're "too fat." 

Yes, we have a public health care system.  We also have a private one.  Both are limited.  It's not perfect and there's plenty of room for improvement, but I'm glad we have it.

Is it a socialist system?

Nope.

Double standards, once again.

While going through my morning news and blogs, I've noted something.  A few blogs have been writing about the protesters arrested at Carleton University.  These were peaceful protesters, who were also tuition paying students at the university.  There was no aggressiveness, belligerence or... well, see for yourself.



There are a couple of things that stand out when I watch this.  Number one is how incredibly polite everyone is being.  The students stood their ground, verbally defending their right to free speech and their rights, as students of the university, to have a public protest.  Even while being arrested, the students were polite, with no resistance of any kind.  No shouting, rudeness, mockery, violence... nothing.  A bunch of students, wanting to exercise their free speech rights, were arrested for it, and it was all amazingly calm.

The other thing I noticed was how little was written about this in the news.  It was just another story that quickly went away.  Where were all the stories about how free speech is being squashed?  Where are the loud admonitions of police unjustly arresting peaceful protesters?  Where are the loud admonitions from bloggers and free speech advocates?  Where is the hue and cry to release these protesters immediately and have all charges dropped?  Where are the folks so eager to attack the powers that be (whether it's the university, the police, Conservatives and Stephen Harper) for allowing this authoritarian rights abuse?

Oh, wait.  These are pro-life demonstrators.  Never mind.

Don't think there's a double standard?  Well, how about this for comparison.





You'll note, for starters, that no one is arrested in this video.  The protesters are loud and in-your-face.  There's the two guys being obnoxious and behaving rather offensively; especially the one pretending to cup the genitals of one of the police officers.  (Yeah, there's a girl there, too, but she clearly doesn't know how to do a lap dance.) The protesters are shouting a mocking chant.  Their attitude towards the police is mocking in general, and while, judging from the looks on their faces, they seem to think it's all fun and games and a big joke, the behaviour is actually quite aggressive and threatening.

So on the one hand, we've got a bunch of obnoxious "peace" protesters behaving like idiots, then everyone is surprised when the police end up arresting the whole lot of them.  A small segment of people is struggling mightily to keep this 'atrocity' - as they see it - in every one's minds.  Every chance they get, they're bring up the G20 arrests, along with speeches about how our government is so evil.

Then we have a small group of protesters who actually behave peacefully, as well as respectfully.  They get arrested, again peacefully.  Yet the same people who are bursting blood vessels in anger over the G20 protesters being arrested are completely silent over this abuse of rights on behalf of a university. On the contrary, when this sort of thing happens (and it has happened before) if there is any comment, it's to condemn the protesters.  

As is so often the case, it's all about freedom for them and their points of view, but not for those who hold opposing points of view.

Walking the talk

I hadn't expected to be writing about abortion and prenatal development again quite so soon, but in the last while, I've found myself encountering a few interesting comments, articles and stories recently that bring me back to the subject. 

I've mentioned before that I've been having difficulty understanding the pro-abortion position.  Since writing last on the subject, I've encountered some increasingly silly defenses for abortion.  Perhaps the most bizarre of all was one commenter claiming, "the fetus isn't alive.  You can't kill something that isn't alive."  It's hard to wrap my mind around that sort of ignorance.  Heck, we even acknowledge that a cancerous tumour is alive, and that our goal in fighting it is to kill it.  Individual cells are alive and can be killed, but a fetus isn't?

I think what a lot of it comes down to is, just how aware is the fetus?  While there are those on the pro-abortion side that do acknowledge an abortion really is the killing of a human baby, even if it's not fully developed and viable, there are plenty who insist that, like the commenter I mentioned above, the fetus isn't a living thing, never mind a living being.  There's the attempt to dehumanize the developing fetus and regard it as the equivalent of unwanted tissue - a tumour, or even a parasite.  Getting rid of it is, to this mindset, is no different than getting rid of a wart.

One of the articles I came across recently is Birth and The Origins of Violence.  While I don't completely agree with all off it (some parts fail the correlation/causation smell test, for example), I found it quite fascinating.  Such things have been discussed for many years, but our improved medical technology has allowed us to prove what had, in the past, only been suspected.

As someone who's had two pregnancies, I know from personal experience that my children had definite personalities well before they were born.  They even actively interacted with us (not the most comfortable of things, when that interaction involved my husband pressing down on different areas of my belly, then waiting for our daughter to push back in the same spot).  Like many other pregnant mothers, I talked to my growing baby, as did my family.  I listened to music I thought might be soothing, read out loud, and so on.

The above article talks about what most mothers already know at least somewhat; that our children are intelligent, pro-active beings with definite personalities before birth, and that what we did, or what happened to us while pregnant could have lasting effects on the development of our children.  It's more than eating right, avoiding alcohol and cigarettes, and so on, to protect the physical development of our children, but understanding that their minds are not blank and empty.  They are responsive.  They feel emotions and physical sensations and, according to the research discussed in the article, they feel it far earlier than most mothers are able to feel their movements, show signs of pregnancy, or even know that they are pregnant yet at all.

It's a fascinating read, and well worth the time to go through all of it.

What usually happens when the contradictions and errors of the pro-abortionist position becomes too much to argue against, tactics change.  Among the most common I've seen tend to be voiced something like this.  "Sure, you fanatical, Christian, Conservative, Right-wing, crazy people want to make abortion illegal and doom women to have unwanted babies, but you're not there to take care of all these unwanted babies."

Aside from the tiring assumption that, if someone questions whether or not abortions for any reason and without restrictions really is a good thing, they must therefore be 1) right-wing 2) woman hating and 3) fundamentalist Christian nutbars, those that use this strawman argument assume that pro-lifers and anti-abortionists aren't doing anything to help.

They couldn't be more wrong, and today, I heard plenty of real-life examples of it.

I was with a group of friends on an evening outing when the conversation turned to unexpected pregnancies.  One of the women first became pregnant herself at 16.  She didn't have a lot of support and life was hard, but she did marry the father and they went on to have more children.  They are still happily married and doing quite well now, and her children all grew up to be responsible, contributing members of society.

What made her story even more interesting was that one of her sons got his girlfriend pregnant when they were both still in their teens.  His girlfriend's family was completely unsupportive of her, with one member continually trying to coerce her into having an abortion - even to the point of wanting to fly her into the US for a late term abortion (which I find kind of odd, since those are legal here in Canada - though perhaps there just aren't any doctors willing to do it?).  My friend's son, on the other hand, begged her to have the baby, saying that if she didn't want it, he'd raise it himself.

That brings up a whole other issue I'm not going into here - what rights does the father have in regards to the child he helped create?  Staunch pro-abortionists would say he has no rights at all.  Unless, of course, the mother has the child, at which point he's supposed to take on the responsibility.  A rather strange incongruity there, but never mind that for now.

In the end, my friend and her husband took in their son's pregnant girlfriend.  Why?  Because, in her words, God told her to.  So they moved her into their home (she was no longer welcome at her parents' home) and she chose to have and keep the baby.  Some months after the baby was born, she officially became my friend's daughter-in-law.  As for the family member who tried to force her to get an abortion, he never saw or spoke to her again for the rest of his life, nor did he ever see the baby.  It was interesting to learn that her own sister was in a similar situation, except that she was coerced into having an abortion - and now cannot have children at all.  Yet another interesting thought, considering the reaction against a proposed law that would have protected pregnant women from being coerced into having abortions they don't want.  Where is the protection of the rights of the mother here? 

This is hardly an isolated case.  One of the other ladies in the group helps young women like this for a living, as well as helping abused children.  It turns out that a great many young pregnant women are being coerced into abortions against their will - and if they don't go through with it, they are made to suffer for their choice by the very people who should be the most supportive; their families and the fathers of their children.  Quite a number of these young girls are kicked out of their homes by their parents, and would be living on the streets where it not for services such as the one this woman works for.  Some of them are living on the streets anyhow.  Some of the most difficult cases she's had to deal with involve young, pregnant women (as young as 11 yrs old!!) and children who come from abusive situations, staying with them the whole way as things work through the court system, only to see their abusers walk away free and clear because of some technicality.

There are hundreds of people like these two across the country, some working with organizations, others doing their part individually.  Chances are you won't read about them in the papers, nor will you hear about them in the news.  They just quietly go about their lives, while also are reaching out to these young women who have found themselves pregnant and without support; women whose choice is to keep their babies, but are surrounded by people who would take that choice away from them.  Instead of being supported by the people that should be there for them, they are instead being helped by people like these two; people who have no vested interest them, other than the strength of their own convictions, and their willingness to do what they feel is right, no matter how difficult or painful it might be.

People who are walking the talk.

Trying to understand.

After a couple of decades of doing everything possible to avoid it, our politicians are starting to talk about the abortion issue, and it's been fascinating, if disheartening, to watch it unfold.  The trigger was when our federal government announced funding for mothers' and childrens' health in disadvantaged countries.  The Liberals immediately insisted that these monies had to include funding abortions, making access to abortions out to be the thing that's most important in maternal health.  Never mind that it's no where near the top of the list when it comes to improving the health and saving the lives of the women in these countries.  Adequate food, clean water, shelter, medication and sanitation are all considerably higher.  But hey, the Liberals have been trying to pin anything and everything on the Big Bad Conservatives, and the evil, kitten eating Harper, so playing fast and loose with the health and lives of women and children in foreign nations to further their political goals doesn't seem to bother them very much.

Yeah, I'm getting rather impatient with the Liberals these days.  Does it show?

It took some doing, with plenty of help from the MSM and the usual elements in the far left, but they've managed to keep it in people's minds and force it onto our political agendas.

The weird part is that, even though it's been the Libs pushing all this and doing everything they can to turn it into some kind of scandal, it's been twisted around to being the fault of the Conservatives, our PM, and the always evil and draconian "religious right".

Now, I'm not going to delve too far into this subject at all.  I could dedicate this blog entirely to the abortion issue, and likely find fodder to talk about the issue daily for years. I don't have that kind of time to waste on a subject that is so divisive.

As I look to the subject, however, I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand the pro-abortion view.

The pro-life side is pretty easy to get.  In a nutshell, pro-lifers believe that the fetus is a unique human being, separate from the mother, and deserves the same protective rights as anyone has after they've been born.  There may be some quibbling over whether that is right from conception, zygote, or embryo.  There may be disagreement on whether abortion should be outright illegal, or if there should be limits based on trimester.  There is disagreement on whether or not exceptions should be made for cases of rape or incest, or if it's found the developing fetus is severely damaged or disabled in some way.  There may be other disagreements as well but, at the core, they all view abortion as the killing of a baby that just happens to not be born yet, and that it is every bit as abhorrent as killing a baby after it's born.  Whether or not one agrees with the various positions, one can at least understand the foundation of their position.  It's pretty clear cut.

The pro-abortion side is harder to pin down, and the current wailing and gnashing of teeth against the Conservatives, the right, Christians, etc. isn't helping to clarify things.

Here are two recent examples.

The first I read in the comments of a blog I visit.  This particular gentleman repeatedly stated that "an embryo is not a baby.  A fetus is not a baby."

This is a rather clumsy and meaningless appeal to logic. Embryo and fetus are specific stages of prenatal development.  They are even used for egg laying creatures.  Baby is just a descriptive word for the very young of a species, and is frequently used in reference to the pre-born.  After all, when a woman discovers she is pregnant, she doesn't go around announcing that she's going to have a fetus.  No one gets invitations to a Fetus Shower.  People don't ask, "when is the fetus due?"  When mothers talk to their growing bellies, they're not talking to a fetus.  Even though, from a technical standpoint, "fetus" is the correct term, "baby" is the term that's used.

Perhaps the commenter was thinking along the lines of the claim that the fetus is not a person, therefor it has no protection under the law.  This is another meaningless argument.  Until not that long ago, women in Canada weren't allowed to vote because we weren't recognised "persons" under the law.  Enslaving blacks was justified because they weren't considered real humans, either.  Similar arguments have been used to justify the killing of Jews, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, etc.  Clearly, whether or not the law or a culture recognises a group as "people" can be at odds with reality.  Laws can, and do, change.  Women didn't suddenly become people because the law said so.  It just took an awful lot of struggle to change laws to reflect reality.

A related argument is that, because the fetus is completely dependant on the mother, it cannot be viewed as being separate from the mother.  This doesn't pass the logic test, either.  Genetically, the fetus is a unique individual from the mother at the moment of conception.  Once can argue that the zygote, for example, isn't a person because it's just a couple of cells, but by the end of the first trimester, the fetus has all its parts, right down to the fingernails and eyebrow hairs.  Currently, with our medical technology, a fetus is viable by 24 weeks, and who knows how much farther we'll be able to push that back as our technology continues to develop.  A fetus at 24 weeks gestation within the womb is no different than one that's been born prematurely and relying on medical technology for survival, except that it has a better chance of survival.

At what point does the fetus magically become a baby?  If a fetus is also a baby, when does it also become worthy of the same protective rights as any other child? 

As far as the developing fetus is concerned, the mother is a life support system.  Looking at it that way, aborting a baby isn't much different than, say, pulling the plug on someone who's in a coma and dependant on machines to stay alive.  Well, except that the coma victim has his or her machines shut off and remains otherwise intact, rather than that whole being torn apart by a vacuum thing.  Pulling the plug to allow a coma patient to die would be like killing the mother to kill the fetus.  Which happens.

I've also seen the arguments that equate abortion with miscarriage, which I find downright silly.  It would be like saying tripping and falling down the stairs is the same as being pushed down the stairs, because both resulted in death.

I'll leave off that train of thought for this next one I read recently.  A woman I know, upset because some MP said something about how we're going to have to talk about the abortion issue now, wrote that she didn't want things to go back to the way they were in the 50's, and that she'd never want one of her grandchildren to be forced to have a child she didn't want.

I'll give her props to at least acknowledging that she's talking about a child.  Even many staunch pro-abortionists know that the pre-born are babies; children that are separate from, though dependant on, their mothers.

This woman's statement is purely from the emotional point of view. Her wording, however, is perhaps the most confusing to me of all when it comes to trying to understand the pro-abortion point of view.  Aside from portraying the 50's as some sort of bizarre dark age (which shows a significant lack of historical, or even modern, cultural perspective), I am flummoxed by the image of a woman being forced to have a child she doesn't want.  It brings to mind visions of someone shoving a baby in her arms and demanding she raise it (which is not without historical precedent).   Except she's talking about an unwanted pregnancy, which brings to mind the image of a woman who's been artificially impregnated against her will.

One can bring up the usual claims of pregnancy due to rape or incest, but less than 1% of all abortions are ending pregnancies due to rape or incest combined.  So all those other women having abortions because they don't want to have children (I don't know how many are preformed for valid medical reasons; I'm not sure that data is even kept here in Canada) had to have participated in the creation of that pregnancy.  A developing fetus didn't spontaneously start growing in their bodies, like some sort of tumor, or an immaculate conception.  I find it difficult to think that women are so totally and completely unaware of where babies come from, or that they're so completely incapable of controlling their sexual desires, that if they really, really didn't want to have children, they couldn't just... you know... not have sex. 


Of course, the mere suggestion that abstinence might do a better job of preventing unwanted pregnancy than having sex and really hoping the birth control works (if any is used in the first place) has become taboo.  Quite frankly, I think this shows a rather insulting opinion of women.  Do those who reject abstinence really believe that we are too animalistic to resist our hormonal urges?  Or that we're too stupid to understand the consequences of our actions?  Or is it that "if it feels good, do it" mentality, that rejects the notion that maybe, just maybe, we should be responsible for the fallout of our behaviour?  I regularly hear the "just made a mistake," argument, but that doesn't really wash, either. It's a bit like saying you "made a mistake" by marrying the wrong person, then killing him or her instead of getting a divorce.

Right now, Canada has no abortion law.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  Contrary to current mythology, in the dark ages of the 50's, we did have legal abortions.  One could rightfully argue that these were far too difficult to acquire, and that it left women helpless under the control of men, since almost all doctors at the time were men.  Abortions could only be obtained if there was a medical need, and only if 3 doctors agreed that there was a medical need.  In the length of time it would take to get the approval of 3 doctors, the pregnancy might be too far along anyhow.  (Plus, the numbers of women back then that died because of back alley abortions were greatly - and deliberately - exaggerated, but that's a whole other issue.)

While it's generally assumed that only pro-lifers want to revisit the abortion issue, and that they all want to make all abortions illegal, this is not the reality.  There are plenty of pro-abortionists that want to revisit the issue, believing there should be limits on abortions based on how far along the pregnancy is.  Others believe that women should be free to have an abortion at any time and for any reason, but that our medicare system should only pay for medically necessary ones.  Likewise, there are pro-lifers that believe abortion is morally wrong, but don't believe they have the right to force others to abide by their beliefs - in other words, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

There's really only one thing for sure about the abortion issue, and that it's not a far right/far left issue, but one that's extremely complex, with people all over the spectrum, and no easy answers.