15 and counting

Like many of you, I have just become aware of a book about to be released entitled Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict. It involves a New York woman of Puerto Rican heritage named Irene Vilar who had fifteen abortions in fifteen years before finally getting help for her addiction, as well as ridding herself of a husband who didn't want children, and giving birth to two live children
(See http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2060984).

I don't want to go into the details of the book. They are complicated and very, very sad. A few salient points are these:
1. She seemed like a prime candidate to be addicted to something. Her mother, who was depressed, was addicted to Valium. While still a young woman with small children, she jumped out of a moving car and died. Her father was an alcoholic and addicted to gambling. Two of her brothers are heroin addicts.
2. She married a 50 year old man who didn't want children. She did want them, however, and found herself between the proverbial rock (maternal instinct) and a hard place (potential loss of her husband). It led her to allowing herself to becoming pregnant again and again and then aborting. She said that getting pregnant, despite the inevitable result, was an attempt to retain some control in her relationship.
3. All but one of her abortions were performed in New York state, sometimes by the same doctors.
4. She remains ardently pro-choice.

I suppose that in pro-life circles this woman will be labeled as a monster, or else some pathetic soul duped by the abortion industry into murdering fifteen real persons. Some pro-choicers will turn her into a kind of hero for recognizing that her aberrant behaviour does not take away from her strong belief in the rightness of their position. I'll leave them to slug it out.

What strikes me about this horror story is this:

1. Whatever obsessions and compulsions Ms Vilar had, her first husband did not. He was a professor. Presumably he loved her. He didn't know about all the abortions, but he was aware of some of them. What is it about our culture that made him comfortable with these serial abortions, at least for a while? Was he just another psycho, or did he view abortion as that trivial an activity?
2. Who were these doctors performing multiple abortions? I believe even the most committed pro-abortionists admit that the likelihood of physical and emotional damage from abortions increases with each such surgery. Are abortions not tracked? Is the mother's health of such little consequence? I know that there is big money in the abortion business (just look at Planned Parenthood U.S.'s financial statements), but doctors also take the Hippocratic Oath. Are medical ethics that corrupted in some circles?
3. The article reviewing the book quoted studies of woman who have multiple abortions as considerably more likely to have experienced physical abuse, sexual abuse, or coercion. We also know that most abortions (and I got this from pro-choice literature) are done for someone else--an unwilling partner, embarrassed family, inflexible school authorities, hardhearted boss, etc. Does an abortion really solve such problems? Did they for Ms Vilar?

What do I take from this book? First of all, woman are still being taken advantage of in ways that I can hardly imagine as an educated white male. Secondly, women pay a big price, and take huge personal risks, in availing themselves of the most recommended option--to abort. Finally, how often does an abortion solve the problems that led women to securing one in the first place? I suggest seldom if ever.

There must be a better way. Not that our present provincial and federal governments are interested.

The big life challenges as I see them

My blogging will concentrate on four general areas that I view to be fundamental to the pro-life/pro-choice/pro-abortion debate. The skinny follows.

1. What does pro-choice mean? I'll admit my biases up front. I am pro-life in the classic sense that I believe that unborn babies are just that--unborn real persons. And I wish that no pregnant woman felt the impetus to abort. Nevertheless, I could live with a pro-choice agenda in Canada if we really had it. At this point, many women do seek abortions to address whatever personal problem they have that they hope abortion will solve. But does she have the full information necessary to make an informed choice? I think not, which explains why so many women complain after the fact that they were misled, even lied to, and that had they been told everything that was necessary to make their best choice, they would have chosen differently. Real and informed choice requires full information, and our society does not encourage this in the case of abortion.

2. The moral argument. Everyone debating the life/choice issue believes that she or he occupies the moral high ground. People of faith who argue for the dignity of life from conception do so on what they feel has been revealed as true by a Higher Power. Even those pro-life people who do not look to their faith/scripture/God for direction will still argue it morally on a philosophical basis. The choice argument is made on the basis of fundamental human rights. Consequently, moral arguments become judgmental salvos hurled at "the other side" as a means of condemning immoral behaviour.

3. The definition of full rights for women. People who argue for full and equal rights for women and men often posit the following premises.
a. For a woman to have full human rights, equal to a man's, there cannot be any restriction on the exercise of those rights that would not be placed on a male.
b. That means that women must have reproductive rights. That is, just as men are not hindered in the exercise of their rights by pregnancy/motherhood, so too must women have the choice of rejecting any restrictions placed upon them by an unwanted fetus. Therefore abortion must be legal, affordable and accessible.
c. For abortion to be legal, the unborn baby must be eligible for termination. This is possible only if it is denied personhood.

Those who argue for pro-life often restrict themselves to moral arguments (personhood of fetuses, abortion is murder, etc.). Therefore they see the rights argument as a red herring. But the pro-life side has been remiss in not tackling the issue of full and equal rights for women and what that means in a pro-life context.

4. Legislative action taken by governments. The governments of North America and western Europe have, by and large, bought the women's rights argument and have allowed abortion up to a certain stage of pregnancy or have placed no restrictions upon the procurement of an abortion at all. Such legislation ignores the reasons why most women seek abortions; i.e., lack of information, pressures of various sorts from others (often illegal and violent), and so on. As is often the case with ticklish moral questions, governments have addressed the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes.

I am going to attempt to address these four complex areas in my posts. Wish me luck!

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.....

...or at least I hope so. I last blogged almost a year ago, offering my Canadian and American federal election predictions. I wasn't far off, was I? By the way, I was correct with my municipal election forecast as well--I was re-elected to the Abbotsford BC Board of Education. Thank you, thank you very much, thank you.

A poignant story for you. Two weeks after I wrote my last post, which was election day in Canada, my father had a stroke. He was a political junkie who had served many times as a city councilor and school trustee, and once ran federally for the former Progressive Conservative Party. He suffered the stroke just a couple of hours after voting at his assisted living home in Pembroke ON. That night in the hospital he awoke from his coma. His first question was, "Was our local member re-elected?" We were happy to be able to tell him that she had been. Three and a half days later he died, aged 87.

This past spring I made the big decision to retire from full-time professional work. That is not to say that I would not look at short-term or part-time opportunities that may present themselves from time to time. And I would welcome speaking opportunities. But I am through chasing contracts. The school board will keep me busy (as will my wife, she assures me), and I will be re-creating my life at the robust age of 62.

One thing that I have been asked to do by a number of people is to return to blogging. I was pleased that even a few individuals had thought enough of my ramblings to ask me to continue.

So here I am.

I intend to pursue my interests in dignity of life issues, particularly the pro-life/pro-choice debate and women's rights. I know, I know--what does a man really know about women's rights? Fair question and I'll continue to need help as I always have with this issue. So I'll be talking to a number of women, older and younger, as I deal with topics of interest.

I can't say how often I will be blogging, but I hope to get something out weekly. I know that a good number of bloggers are posting much more often, but my posts are really essays and take more time and research than more frequent blogging would allow.

So bear with me as I get back into harness. I look forward once again to mixing it up with others interested in the same topics.

John is alive and well....

....and working in Vancouver. I thought that I was done with blogging for the time being. I've started this great new job with Pacific Theatre. I'm commuting 70 clicks one way to Vancouver every day. I'm enjoying life with my wonderful spouse, Sharon. Who has time to blog?

But I miss it. I really liked cranking up the Dashboard every once in a while and hammering out a few thoughts. I'm out of the loop regarding pro-life issues right now. But I thought I would try my hand at a few political prognostications.

First, Steven Harper will be returned as prime minister with an increased minority. He will take votes away from the Liberals and the Bloc, but not in sufficient numbers to make it to majority territory. Too many numb skulls in his party have made too many mistakes; e.g., pooping Puffins, running down dead soldiers' dads, using black humour regarding tainted meat, plagiarized speeches, etc. If the political I.Q. of these people were any lower, they would have to be watered once a week.

The NDP will also take away seats from the Liberals. Stephane Dion will put on a brave front for a while and then resign. That will leave the Liberals with the choice as leader of the worst premier in recent history in Ontario, or an academic who spent 30 years outside the country and in an article referred to Americans as 'we'. Good luck to them.

Despite having a clear hatred for the private sector, and a very unsure handle on economics, Jack Layton will get a good number of protest votes and substantially increase his seats. That one trick pony called the Green Party will sink without a trace. Elizabeth May is a very nice lady and would make a great backbench MP or chair of a parent advisory council. The Bloc will retain about half of the Quebec seats, perhaps a little less than that. Duceppe will pack it in and retire.

In the U.S. the less flawed candidate (Mr. Obama) will prevail because Mr. McCain appears to have no obvious strategy for winning. While neither vice-presidential candidate should give Americans any cause for comfort, Ms. Palin is a political accident looking for somewhere to happen.

And finally, John Sutherland will be re-elected to the Abbotsford BC Board of Education.

You read it here first.

Gone

The last post. Sounds kind of mournful, doesn't it. This being the final week of my contract with Abbotsford Right to Life, I'm making my last comments on johnonlife. My next contract, which starts in September, is with that wonderful theatre company in Vancouver, Pacific Theatre, where I will be the general manager.

This post is a bit of a ripoff in a way. I wrote a response to a post in that great blog ProWomanProLife, and have decided to use it as my last comment in my own blog (my apologies to Andrea Mrozek).

So here goes. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more....

People do all kinds of irrational things, even when they are well aware of the potential consequences of their decisions. Why do people smoke? Drink and drive? Drop out of school? Neglect exercise and a good diet? Refuse to see a doctor when they experience odd and fearful symptoms? Have abortions? We all know someone who has paid the price for such decisions.

Seldom is the answer to these questions a rational, carefully thought through, intelligent answer. That’s because there aren’t such answers to these questions. Education regarding the likely consequences of these behaviours is routine in school and workplace settings. Fortunately, these education efforts are slowly having an effect, and society is the healthier for it.

The exception is abortion. Here education is almost completely lacking. Most women are kept in the dark about the harmful consequences of abortion for many women. Any attempt to address the matter is emotionally and vociferously resisted by women’s groups, parliamentarians, post-secondary students’ councils, etc. Consequently, women are duped into thinking that abortion is an nice, hassle free, in-by-nine-out-by-ten-and-back-to-work procedure.

Adding to the difficulty is that we have allowed the “pro-choice” people to narrow the field of argumentation, making stereotyping that much easier. Pro-choice doesn’t mean choosing among long-term solutions to crisis pregnancies in the best interests of the woman and anyone else affected by the decision. It simply means the choice of whether or not to have an abortion, as if there were no other good solutions.

But “pro-life” has also come to mean the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. Neither side concentrates on the long-term solutions. Both sides concentrate only on the fetus--whether it lives or dies. Neither choice is rational in and of itself, in that each is short-term and ignores the context within which the choice is being made and the long-term consequences of making it.

Pro-choice ideology is narrow, short-term, unimaginative, and potentially harmful to the long-run best interests of the decision-maker. I am suggesting that pro-life ideology, as it is understood in society today, is no different. If we want to do women and girls a favour, we will have to become a lot more creative, more daring, harder working, and more intelligent in our advocacy than we are now.

Now I understand that in taking a pro-life position, most of us are doing so on a moral, even theological basis–-the sanctity of life. I believe in this as well. But God didn’t create us just to exist–-to breathe, eat and wet our diapers. He created us to live in a certain positive and fulfilling way and for a certain purpose. People and structures that threaten this way of life and that purpose are to be opposed and destroyed. What is the pro-life movement doing to sanctify life beyond merely getting life started? That is the huge question. Its answer should be the real reason for our existence.

__________________________________________

Now for a few closing remarks and thank yous. Abbotsford Right to Life has been very supportive of my writing endeavours, and has politely overlooked my mistakes while lauding my occasional successes. Thank you to Dorothy Blaak and Arlene Penner for being wonderful colleagues for this past year.

Suzanne Fortin's Big Blue Wave is a treasure trove of information and opinion (although I would advise her to drop some of her bloggers in the interest of greater credibility). I have appreciated her support for what I am trying to do, and I wish her the very best in raising that new baby.

Feminists for Life and ProWomanProLife are doing wonderful work in providing a creative pro-life perspective in a pluralistic society.

Approximately 3100 readers from around the world have logged into my site. While some of you ended up there quite accidentally, I hope that many of you were helped in some way to think through issues. I noticed that the IP addresses appearing in my blog counter included regular readers in the federal and British Columbia governments, as well as with Fraser Health. Thanks for your interest.

Thank you to Terry O'Neill for drawing my blog to the attention of a wider audience in its earlier days. The same to John Hof.

Thanks to everyone who sent in comments to various posts. While I sometimes disagreed with them, I was always challenged to think more thoroughly about the issue in question.

Thanks to my son Steve, who helped me to set up the blog in the first place, who provided guidance with any technical issues, and who did some good research for me on the Internet from time to time. He, along with his sister Julie and their mother Sharon, were my best critics (as usual).

And finally, thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.

Bloody amateurs

When I feel like laughing and crying simultaneously, I read the Toronto Star's Antonia Zerbisias. I laugh because she is such a poor reasoner. But I cry because apparently she has a following that takes her seriously.

In her Broadside dated July 22 she discusses (not very well) what life was like for women who had to resort to illegal abortions. At one point, she pokes fun at Jews and Christians with this silly reference to the Old Testament:

Nothing like ''perforation of womb and bladder'' which caused ''death from infection or hemorrhage'' to make a woman think twice about having sex or being independent. It's all so biblical.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Biblical know-nothings should simply not cite scriptural passages. They almost always mean something different from what the one quoting them thinks they do.

This reference is to Genesis chapter 3 where God pronounces upon Adam and Eve's decision to disobey him despite the good things that he has lavished on them. For centuries commentators (almost exclusively male) have taken the text to mean that it was God's intention that women would now find childbearing, and especially delivery, to be a painful experience. Similarly, it was posited that her "desire for her husband" was meant as a permanent subordination of wives to husbands and an end to a woman's independence (this despite the almost completely opposite depiction of a married woman in Proverbs 31).

Biblical feminists have led the way in bringing about a much more reasonable understanding of this passage. God was not pronouncing a curse on his creatures when he said that the world would now be characterized by scarcity and competition, that human labour would be monotonous and difficult, and that women would be subordinated to, and exploited by, men. Rather he was explaining to them the inevitable consequences of their choices.

Choices have consequences--good and bad--because of the way in which they cement or rupture relationships. If there is mutual respect between two individuals, it makes no difference that one is in a position to exploit the other. It would never happen. But throw in some hatred, some avarice, some selfishness, and Bob's your uncle.

Women have suffered from men's hands not because of God's approval, his preference, or his curse--quite the opposite. One of my goals as a pro-sanctified lifer is that the proper relationship of mutual respect, love, admiration, and support be restored as we see it in the Garden of Eden and in the principles, values and goals of God for humankind. Abortions would plummet, of that there is no doubt. Most of the reasons for obtaining an abortion would be eliminated.

But then Antonia would have to find another line of work. That would also be a good thing.

[In the interests of full disclosure, I understand the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be an extended parable intended, like any parable, to teach theological truth in accessible language. This does not change the force of my arguments above.]

That's a lot of fundamentalists!!

July 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A random telephone poll of Canadian households with 13,324 respondents conducted between July 17-21, 2008 has revealed that 55.8% of Canadians oppose the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072202.html.

Using Dr. Morgentaler's own words to describe those who oppose his nomination to the Order of Canada, 55.8% of Canadians are either Roman Catholics, fundamentalists, or women who don't believe in women's rights. They represent a majority of respondents in every province except Quebec (47%).

Since I've never seen a poll where more than about 30% of Canadians were in favour of making abortion illegal, I have to conclude that there are a lot of pro-choice advocates who still disapprove of ol' Henry at least with respect to the receipt of Canada's highest civilian honour. Sorry, my good doctor, but you are going to have to redefine "the usual suspects".

Curiously, to the best of my knowledge, Morgentaler has never been chosen for inclusion in Canadian Who's Who, unless he has been added since 2005. This standard reference work is published by the University of Toronto, hardly a bastion of the usual suspects. While still a great honour, there are far more people in that publication (approximately 13,000) than are chosen for the Order of Canada (approximately 5,500). Yet the editors seem to sense that his inclusion was not appropriate.

The criteria for being included in Canadian Who's Who are: notable living Canadians.....carefully selected because of the positions they hold in Canadian society, or because of the contribution they have made to life in Canada. Included are outstanding Canadians from all walks of life: business, academia, politics, sports, architecture and the arts-in fact, from every area of human activity.