Shut up, Jordan. (or: Who can speak for First Nations)

Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, has made a practice of being a loud and regressive voice on subjects he doesn’t understand and can’t be bothered to learn about. One of those things is Canada’s First Nations. He claims that he can speak for them because he participated in a couple of long ceremonies and was made an honorary member of a tribe, or something like that.

I have some things to say about that. About him and everyone like him who wants to claim a voice in regard to First Nations.

Let me tell you a bit about myself, who I am, and who I am not and cannot speak for.

I grew up on the Stoney Nakoda reserve at Morley, west of Calgary. My parents are from the US, of entirely European descent (there’s talk in my mom’s family that a great-great-grandmother may have been American Indian, but that’s just talk and has nothing to do with heritage).

My parents worked on the reserve, my dad as a writer, photographer, translator, etc. for the tribe, my mom as a teacher in the school. Our family was “adopted” into the tribe—i.e., my father and mother have a Stoney family, brothers, sisters, etc., and Stoney names; my brother and I also have Stoney names. I was born after my family started living there, and so I was given my Stoney name before I was even born. It’s Îpabi Daguskan, Son of Rock or Stonechild.

I spent my childhood on the reserve. We went to I don’t even know how many pow-wows, feasts, and other events. Hundreds of hours. Can’t say how many times I fell asleep to the sound of drumming and singing while my dad talked to everyone. EVERYONE. And in Stoney. (My dad is fluent in Stoney. I regret to say that I am not. I barely know any.)

I rode the school bus with the Stoney kids. I went to school with them right through grade 9 (then went to a different high school for reasons that had more to do with the white kids in my class).

My parents don’t live on the reserve now, they live near it, but they retain their strong bonds to the community.

So. You’d think, given that my exposure to and participation in and welcoming in the Stoney Nakoda First Nation is several orders of magnitude greater than Jordan Peterson’s, I’d feel that I could speak for them or on their behalf or or or.


My parents don’t either.

All the time I was growing up, I could see that their reality, what they were subject to, how the world looked to them, was different from my experience, background, expectations, what I had to face.

I watched the cartoons on Saturday mornings, cartoons I knew the Stoney kids watched too, and in these cartoons, if there were any “Indians” at all, they were villains.

In school I learned from books that focused entirely on my culture and people like me. My mom was very frustrated as a teacher to have to use material that had no cultural meaning to the students. Opaque references.

If I went into Calgary, I was surrounded by my own cultural heritage and people who looked like me and, to the extent possible for a dorky kid who sucked at behaving himself, I could fit in. The Stoneys, in town, were looked at as “those Indians.”

I remember Moses Fox, a kid I rode the school bus with. He really picked on me a lot. Of course, kids are mean, but then you move on and grow up.

Moses didn’t. By the time I had my BFA from the U of Calgary, he was lying under cold earth. Like many other Stoney kids.

I lived my whole childhood on a reserve. My family was welcomed and was part of the reserve culture. I was given a Stoney name. I was carried around in a hand-made moss bag like any baby on the reserve. I have a picture of myself as a little kid in full pow-wow dress. But.

I rode the bus with the Stoney kids. I went to the feasts, the camp meetings and house meetings, sat through innumerable long prayers and testimonials and songs in both Stoney and English. But.

But I did not come from their heritage. And I did not carry around with me what they all carry with them, good and bad. I could move on and move in the world in places that were made for people with my face and background and not theirs.

And so I would never, ever, speak for them. Not ever. I would never, ever lecture a member of Canada’s First Nations on how to be better at being a member of Canada’s First Nations.

I do not say I am Stoney. I’m not. I know them, they are like family, but I am not them.

They and their parents and grandparents and on back were subject to theft and discrimination and suppression by, and for, and enforced by a government of, people like me and my parents and grandparents.

It’s not my job to speak for them. It’s not my job to wallow in otiose guilt either. It’s my job to try to amplify their voices, and to think about what I can do to help fix things for them and their future, and to try to do it.

If I say something about Canada’s First Nations, and a member of Canada’s First Nations says “No, you’re wrong,” I can say one thing: “I’m sorry, please tell me what’s right.” And then pass them the microphone. Which they should have had in the first place.

So. The TL;DR: I have many times more reason to claim to be able to speak for First Nations than Jordan Peterson has. But many times zero is still zero.

I have the authority to say just one thing: Shut up, Jordan.


Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, First Nations

The Pez dispenser theory of male behaviour

Men often make women feel like prey. Many women have pointed this out. We can see what they’re talking about: Return of Kings, assorted fuckboys, catcalling, “nice guys” who think they deserve a fucking medal for being courteous. Or, you know, just a little smile, gorgeous?

The standard explanation of this is packaged in one word: patriarchy. And patriarchy looks like it’s all about power. But there’s a mechanism that is driving much of this behaviour and is probably the main fuel for patriarchy. It’s this: to a heterosexual male, attractive women are – by dint of their attractiveness – essentially Pez dispensers for endorphin and other reward hormones (dopamine, oxytocin, etc.).

You know what I mean when I say Pez dispenser, right? Those little toy candy dispensers with various heads on them. You tilt back the head, out pops a Pez, which is basically sugar with a bit of flavour. Think of that Pez as endorphin and the other hormones. This is how a woman’s attractiveness functions for a man.

I read a study a few years ago that found that men get an endorphin rush just by looking at an attractive woman. I thought, “Of course!” A lot of the discourse about intersexual relations is focused on sex as the necessary ultimate outcome, but we really don’t have to go that far. The reward chain – which, yes, is geared to drive men to get sexual intercourse – starts with the simple fact of looking at an attractive woman. We get a reward just for that. The endorphins increase with a smile or other positive acknowledgement. Every additional bit of access – a touch, an exposed bit of skin, and so on – gives more reward. More Pez. More endorphins.

Endorphins, I have to tell you, are addictive. You want more. And more. And more.

So you do what you can to get some. See pretty woman: Pez. Pretty woman glances at you: Pez. Pretty woman smiles at you: Pez. Pretty woman says hi: Pez. Physical contact: PEZ. And so on.

Endorphins make you feel good. They make you feel like you own your spot in the world. And speaking of owning and controlling, this is another Pez dispenser. Yes. The same reward chain that feeds into and off of sexual interplay also feeds into and off of mastery and control.

So. Guy sees pretty woman. Gets some Pez. Wants some more. Wants a smile out of her. Is already feeling a bit of a bump in endorphins, and has an anticipatory bump too. “Hey, gorgeous! How about a smile?” Or, because he’s feeling those sex-master-hormones firing up, “Hey, sugartits! Nice rack!” Endorphin-drunk and endorphin-greedy.

But then she refuses to give him what he wants. No smile. Maybe a “Go away.” Worse. What then? Fuckin’ shitty Pez dispenser broken empty won’t work!

You like what your computer can do for you, right? You enjoy it, right? And what happens if it’s slow in delivering? Or doesn’t give you what you want? “You useless piece of garbage!” And that’s just a computer. That’s not a full-on endorphinated Pez dispenser.

But guys see women as people, right? They have conversations with them and everything! Yes, of course. And many guys are very well able to remember that this is, above all, a person. They can keep perspective and not get too Pez-greedy. But some guys – far too many, actually – are just too tied up in the Pez. And they will make all sorts of rationalizations. You know how alcoholics can behave? “I can stop any time. I drink it for the flavour – look, this is quality Scotch, not cheap crap from a paper bag.” “Come, we’re having a fun chat, come have a drink with me.” “My friend! You’re a great guy. Got a beer for me? WHAT? Whaddya mean no? You fucking asshole!” What, by the way, is the reward system for alcohol? Endorphins – among other things.

Sex is addictive. Desire is addictive. Being the object of attraction is addictive. Being dumped can be like heroin withdrawal.

So. Attractive women are a source of hormone Pez. Men naturally desire that. Some desire it quite strongly. Some may rationalize it or deny it. Many will feel vulnerable: that thing that gives them the good feeling, the feeling of control over their world, is coming from an outside source that can say no to them. But it’s their sense of power! Yesss! They must have it! They must control the supply!

That endorphin Pez can make you feel like a king. You want to be a king. A king of the Pez. If you’re not feeling kingly enough, you want to do what will return you to your kingdom and given you control over the Pez! Even if it means carpet-bombing the damn place and killing or enslaving the people there because you must have your Pez kingdom.

Obviously this is not a good approach. But even the more subtle approaches can be problematic. Guy stops, blocking other people behind him, to “let the ladies go by,” and fancies himself a magnanimous gentleman for giving them what they don’t need but he really just wants to be the person receiving Pez from them. If someone cuts around him, he might threaten to punch them, or might just make passive-aggressive comments loudly (I’ve seen both happen). So many other “gentlemanly” behaviours are also geared to Pez-dispenser control and maintenance.

When a woman who is normally very friendly and affection just doesn’t feel like popping out an extra piece of Pez at the moment, the guy has abrupt Pez withdrawal and gets upset. Women who aren’t sufficiently attractive are treated like broken dispensers, no good.

If you’re a guy who’s attracted to women, you know this. You know how it feels. You’re lying or in denial if you say you don’t. (I believe the reward pathways are the same for gay men, but with different objects of attraction and different sexual politics, but I don’t feel qualified to comment on it. I really don’t feel qualified to talk about the reward pathways for women. I’m always hoping to learn more.)

And if you’re a guy who’s attracted to women, you do at least some of the above. Yes you do. No matter how hard you try not to treat women like they’re just Pez dispensers, you gotta have you some Pez. And you will get it. In fact, many women are quite pleased to dispense it, in reasonable measure, as long as they have control of themselves and their lives, and as long as they aren’t given the feeling that they’re just seen as Pez dispensers. Why not? People flirt. People smile at each other. You’re not a bad person for enjoying a bit of freely given Pez. You have pretty certainly gotten a bit too greedy at times, and I hope you have learned not to. You will very likely get a bit too greedy again, and you will continue to learn how to get your Pez and how not to. It’s called growing up. You know, that thing you’re supposed to do to be a man.

Because as long as you rely on someone else for your sense of control, you don’t really have control. Even if you maintain control over that external source, you still don’t have control. You’re a man when you can control yourself. And not require constant pops of Pez like a sugar-addicted boy.

Oh, and if you’re a guy reading this, and you’re saying, “Yeah, but women…”, stop there. Are you responsible for yourself? Deal with yourself. Trying to use other people’s behaviour to excuse your misbehavior is what children do.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender politics, Uncategorized

Politicians and abortion

As a rule, I avoid talking about abortion. People just get upset when they talk about abortion, even if they all agree. Only life experience (yours or a friend’s) is likely to change a person’s position on it. In conversation, people just get more and more angry. But I have some things I want to get off my chest.

To start with: Legally, abortion is a settled issue. The Supreme Court has decided. No matter what individual politicians believe, they will not change that. No leader of a major party is putting outlawing abortion into his platform. What any given member of parliament (or, in the US, congress) believes or wants to happen or says on the stump, it will not change. You are not required to like this, and I’m not going to enter into the rightness or wrongness of legalization of abortion here (see above); I recommend listening to several women who had had or have considered abortions rather than arguing about it online. But regardless of what you would like to be the case, political means will not change it now. Focusing on politicians’ positions is barking up the wrong tree.

What this also means is that making abortion a political issue can produce effects that are not consistent with your overall values. Have a look at the politicians who are vocally opposed to abortion. Some of them have positions that are in many ways the opposite of the teachings of Jesus. “For I was hungry,” Jesus might say to them at the end, “and you called me a parasite, I was thirsty and you sold my water, I was a stranger and you turned me away, I was naked and you arrested me, I was sick and you turned me over to profiteers, I was in prison and you threw away the key.” I will not say that all politicians who are opposed to abortion have these kinds of harmful views, because I know it’s not the case. But if you vote for a party that opposes abortion and against one that believes it should remain legal, in Canada and the US right now, you are voting for a party that has a track record of exactly this kind of behaviour. It may upset you that a politician or party is pro-choice, but in real terms their stance on that issue almost certainly makes no difference. Their stance on issues affecting the poor, the hungry, the displaced, and those who need care and forgiveness, on the other hand, may make very important, real differences.

I do not think it is the right thing to do to vote for those who would do harm, or against those who would do good, on the basis of their stated position on something that is a moot point. Results are what count. Many people who are pro-life recognize that those who are pro-choice are sincerely interested in women’s rights and health, but they object that those people are causing the death of children: their good intentions are, in their view, leading them to cause harm. Well, apply that line of thought here: your best intentions opposing abortion may lead you to do something that causes real harm.

Those who are pro-choice, of course, do not see an early-term, non-viable fetus as a fully developed human, and they are far more concerned for the fully developed human female whose life may, in our society, be derailed by a pregnancy. You may say they are wrong about the fetus not being human, but you are mistaken if you deny that a pregnancy carried to term can have disastrous consequences for women in some positions. And you are naive if you think that the women can just say “No” easily or just use birth control. Talk to more women with a wider variety of experiences in the world. It simply isn’t the case.

Abortion is a decision very few people take lightly. It is traumatic. It is an act of desperation. I am not aware of anyone on either side of the issue who wouldn’t want to see fewer unwanted pregnancies – fewer women who are in a position where abortion would seem like a viable way out. It’s the lines of thought on how to get there that differ. On one side, the view is that women should simply say no, or perhaps use birth control – though many people on that side are opposed to birth control. On the other side, the view is that women should be in better positions to say no if they want to, be in better positions to use birth control. Which, as it happens, is proven to be an excellent way of reducing abortion rates (here’s more on that). I have no hesitation in advocating equality for women and full availability of birth control. Also reproductive health counselling so that young women are fully aware of their contraceptive options (see above).

So. If you are opposed to abortion, and you would like to see fewer abortions, focus on what will produce that result and will not result in harm.Saying something should be the case and feeling morally right about it means little if as a result your actions, or the actions of those you support, are inevitably producing abhorrent results.

Abortion is an issue that lets people on both sides feel very righteously angry. That doesn’t really help anything. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, start by finding women who have had abortions or have considered having abortions. Don’t talk at them. Listen to them. Find out why they were in that position in the first place. Then work on doing what it takes to help other women not to be in that position. Effective things that actually work.

Because you know what they say about good intentions and the road to you-know-where. Good results matter a lot more.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion

Hobby Lobby, hypocrisy, and employers’ rights

I reposted on Facebook an image that declares, “Change ‘Christian’ to ‘Islam’ in the Hobby Lobby case, and the same people arguing for it would be frothing at the mouth against it. It’s called hypocrisy.” This got a response from one connection (a friend of a Facebook friend): “I’ve never asked a Muslim co-worker to buy me bacon, and I wouldn’t demand that a Muslim employer buy bags of pork rinds to put in his vending machine or to fead me with at a lunch and learn session. So in the name of eschewing hypocrisy I take it everyone re-posting or liking this meme also supports having their tax money go to ‘faith based’ charities that provide essential services, err I mean human rights.” Here is the response I wrote to that:

Best solution to the Hobby Lobby issue: not have private companies involved in essential health care. In the civilized world (not including the US) health care coverage is mediated directly by the government. Supplementary coverage for some things the government plan may not cover (e.g., massage, dental, eyecare, prescription drugs) may be handled through plans that are contracted through employers (but paid for at least in part by employees), but the bulk of health care coverage is handled in a far more efficient and effective way as a single-payer public service rather than an inefficient marketplace of multiple levels of profit-taking. Costs are much lower and outcomes much better, and we don’t have the risk of direct employer interference.

Everyone pays for things they don’t like through their taxes. Tax breaks and grants to charities go to organizations that sometimes have directly competing interests. The same government that pays for the army gives breaks to pacifist groups; Zionist and Palestinian relief groups may both get benefits; governments run lotteries and at the same time support through tax relief and, sometimes, direct grants religious organizations that are strictly opposed to gambling. The owners of Hobby Lobby can’t avoid indirectly supporting things they don’t like any more than the rest of us can; government is there as an organism for all of the country, and all of the country is a very diverse set of people with multifarious needs and desires. But of course they don’t want to seem to be supporting it directly. Also, like so many other companies, they are trying to find a way out of the government mandate. Many companies have been looking at cutting their staff hours so that their workers are exempted. Another example of why leaving employers out of the crucial nexus would be better.

But I think it is a very fair statement that many people who see religious rights as being trampled on here are concerned about their religious rights but less so about the religious rights of others. It doesn’t take a lot of looking to find people who are very strongly in favour of the rights of Christians of their particular stripe to exercise the dictates of their interpretations of their consciences who at the same time are directing streams of invective and bigotry against Islam.

This is not so much an analog of asking Muslim co-workers to buy you bacon, anyway. It is a closer analog of a company whose boss is a Muslim setting a strict policy that meal expense accounts can only be used for halal food, and absolutely in no case ever for pork. But it’s not a perfect analog of that, either. Hormone therapy – “birth control pills” – is used not just for birth control but for various other medical conditions as well. And in some cases where it is used for birth control, it is because the woman is taking another necessary prescription drug that is a known teratogen. Some people have chronic conditions that are life-threatening or strongly deleterious to quality of life that can currently be treated effectively only with medications that have a high risk of producing birth defects. Preventing women who are taking those medications from using birth control is telling them that they have a choice of 1) no sex life, even if they are married, 2) a risk of children with severe congenital impairments, or 3) going without treatment for their condition.

But I’m not arguing for employers making exceptions for people with special needs. The would accept the assumption that the employer has a right to dictate how employees receive their health care and live their private lives. The very idea that your employer should have any say in how you live your private life – except inasmuch as it directly affects your employer (e.g., through Tweeting compromising statements about them) – is unacceptable, a throwback to feudalism, and only the United States among all developed countries seems to have a problem seeing that.

Leave a comment

Filed under healthcare, USA

How to protect yourself against a police state

A Facebook acquaintance has presented the argument that gun ownership is necessary to protect ourselves against a police state, and that gun control advocates, who inevitably want to take away all guns, are leading us down the path to something like Communist Russia. We would be better, he says, committing resources to mental health and looking for ways to alleviate the gap between rich and poor. This is my response:

You’re presenting a scaremongering extreme example. Regulating guns carefully, which we do in Canada, obviously does not lead to confiscation of all guns; if it did, it would have done so already. You might as well say that regulating prescription medications — which we do more tightly in Canada than in the US — will lead to unavailability of prescription medications. Or or or.

It’s true that our freedoms are being eroded by the Harper Conservatives, subtly and gradually, in a kind of frog-boiling exercise and entirely through abuse of the system, for example overpadded omnibus bills, but they know well enough, like the cynical and powerful in the US, that guns make pleasant little pacifiers for scared people to hang onto. I would like you to consider the equipment available to the Canadian army, and imagine whether a bunch — or even thousands — of Canadians with heavy weapons could really oppose that — really as in “not in a Hollywood movie.” Now consider the odds of opposing the American army, which so many supposed “patriots” in the US think they could do. It’s frankly laughable.

No, really, it is. In Syria there are freedom fighters with international supply sources going up against a much smaller country and they’re still getting badly hurt. And what we’ve seen with the Arab Spring is that the only way citizens are going to prevail against a hostile government is either (a) to persuade it to resign for fear of looking bad in the international eye or out of some lingering hesitation to murder thousands of citizens and destroy much of the country or (b) with international help.

If groups of “patriots” in the US or Canada decided to oppose a hostile government with armed force, first of all, most citizens would not go along with it; think about Germany, where they won not by taking people’s guns (the Nazis had looser gun control than the previous government) but with the complicity of enough of the populace, though the kind of propaganda assault that is popular with political parties everywhere (only of course more sinister than most), and taking advantage of a populace who were scared and resentful in the aftermath of the first World War and its sequelae. But among those groups that decided to go with armed insurrection, they would not all agree with each other — again, look at Syria, and look at the kind of infighting you can see, for instance, in the US Libertarian Party. Even if there were two million people with assault weapons, they would cause a lot of damage but they would be wiped out by the breathtaking superiority of the US army. Simply scale down the numbers for the Canadian equivalent.

The way to protect ourselves from a police state is NOT TO ELECT ONE. Good grief. Pay attention to who you’re voting for. When a politician puts energy into making you fearful of threats, recognize that you’re being played. It’s the same approach that made the Nazis so successful — and many other less vile but still obnoxious groups.

Don’t tell me what advocates will and won’t do. I am one. You are not one. I know quite a few. You seem to know only your fantasies and straw men.

And don’t waste time with false oppositions either. Committing resources to mental illness is not something that takes away from gun control. Indeed, with less gun violence there is more money freed for other things, since gun violence has its undeniable costs. Likewise looking at the gap between rich and poor — something that certainly does need to be addressed, and is best addressed by good social services in a well-funded (by taxation) state wherein everyone recognizes the rights and obligations of citizenship and sees their government as of, by, and for them, and works to keep it that way, rather than indulging in paranoid us-versus-them fantasies that foster opposition to and disengagement from the government, thereby undercutting the best means of improving social services.

Leave a comment

Filed under gun control

“The good thing about Rob Ford is…”

I’ve seen and heard it said that the good thing about Rob Ford is that he’s provoked a level of citizen involvement in civic politics that hasn’t been seen in decades, if ever.

Well, yes, it is gratifying to see people really getting actively involved. But I think calling that a beneficial effect of Rob Ford’s administration is like saying “Well, this flu was really good – it got my immune system working.” Or “That hurricane had the positive effect of giving the disaster relief system a good workout.”

A well-run city should not require huge amounts of grassroots involvement. Citizens are having to take on, and think about, things that they elected other people to take on and think about so they could go on doing their own parts in making the economy and cultural life of the city run smoothly.

So it’s nice to know that we have this civic immune system and it works. Now it would be great if it didn’t have to work so hard.

Leave a comment

Filed under Toronto

Pro-life, pro-compassion

I posted a link on Facebook to Why I Am Pro-Life by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, worth reading. In a following discussion, I added some of my own thoughts:

I don’t like abortion. I don’t think very many people think it’s a nice thing. Even the strongest advocates for abortion choice are unlikely to see it as a wonderful thing per se; it’s a very unpleasant way to resolve a very unpleasant situation, but for those who get abortions, the alternatives are, as far as they can see, even worse. It would be much better for a woman never to be in the position of feeling she had to get an abortion. Better birth control, better respect for women’s rights: these are things that help women to keep from getting pregnant when it would be a catastrophic life event. At least now a woman can be pregnant and unmarried and not have her whole life destroyed by societally ingrained prudery and censoriousness.

And that’s the really big point here that Friedman’s making: There’s so much concern for that one part of life, that one stage of life, and so little compassion from many of the same people for other parts of life. A female, for some people, has more rights before she’s born than she ever will again. Let’s see… they expect women to be submissive and compliant, but not, of course, to have sex before marriage. A culture that teaches girls to get their validation and direction from men, but somehow they’re supposed to resist the very people they want validation from when that person suggests something that they have come to believe is a sign of an ultimate emotional bond. Hmm. They insist that birth control, preventing conception, is bad, even though it’s the proven best approach for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And if a woman gets pregnant before she’s married they treat her with scorn and condemnation. So the easy answer is just not to have sex before marriage, right? If it’s so easy, why are teen pregnancy rates higher in the Bible belt? Why is the rate of abortion as high among Christians as among non-Christians — and higher among Catholics?

And meanwhile social supports are being cut, care for the already-born is being cut, people who think they’re voting for “family values” are electing people who want to “get government out” — which means keeping the main instrument of the people for caring for the people from doing that work effectively. Even though rates of unwanted pregnancy are lower among people with more education, it becomes harder and harder to get a good education, thanks to cutbacks. The rich get richer (and generally behave as though the usual rules don’t apply to them), the poor get poorer and less well educated. And in the midst of all these conditions that conduce to higher rates of unexpected pregnancy, including unrealistic “abstinence-only” and “no-contraception” teaching that is like saying “wearing seatbelts is wrong; as long as you drive safely you will never have an accident” (I know many safe drivers who have been in accidents), the big big big issue for some people is just to make sure that, after the conditions that lead to more pregnancies in women for whom it could be a catastrophic life event, when there is a pregnancy, the still-forming baby’s rights absolutely trump the rights of anyone else. Wouldn’t it be far better for it not to come to such a pass?

And why is it not obvious to everyone that when a woman has been violated, has had the sanctity of her body destroyed and her sense of personal security and control torn to shreds, the one thing she needs more than anything is some sense of control, some sense of a chance to regain control of her security as a person, some sense that she still has some say in the course her life takes? If a woman has been raped, and you tell her that she can have no control over whether she has a child as a result of that, you are perpetuating the damage. If she feels she has control over her life, if she can have a sense of a secure place where she can make decisions about what happens in her future, if she does not have people screaming at her to do this or not do that, then she may find — as some women certainly have — that if she is pregnant she does want to carry the baby to term, on her terms. Or she may find that she simply cannot, that it would be a lasting evidence of the destruction of what she had been. The one thing we should hope is that at least her life will be saved, that she will be able to recover and regain herself. That is the one thing we have in our control that we can do. If we just tell her that she has to do one thing and can’t do another, if we tell her that this thing that has destroyed her life is actually a blessing, we may or may not help the life of the baby, but we surely will be furthering the destruction of the woman’s life.

Compassion. It really shouldn’t be so much to ask for.

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, healthcare, USA