When you’re trying to convince everybody that you rock and have the potential to be insanely successful, and they should get you on their team, know what doesn’t sound good?

“Oh, and my life is slowly falling apart around me because I have no money, and I’m kinda depressed, and I’ve never felt this crappy and defeated in my entire life, and yes, it seems like I’m very busy, but I’m not getting paid for any of it, and I kind of want to eviscerate myself with a rusty pitchfork every time someone says how great it is that I’m so active and how awesome I am, because OH FOR GOD’S SAKE, SOMEBODY PAY ME, PLEASE.”

So we don’t say it. We talk about how wonderful it is to be busy (so many lunch meetings because you’re always free for lunch when you don’t have a job!) and how great it is to be talking to people about their ideas and how we could help them (because we’re not busy helping anyone who’s paying us!) and that we couldn’t imagine working a 9-5 anyway (okay, that one’s just actually true. I mean, we can imagine it, especially the dental benefits, but c’mon–it does suck).

The best is when people call themselves consultants but actually haven’t been paid in, um… a while. I’m not a consultant. I’m someone who used to be, and is now severely underemployed in a job that barely pays my bills now, and won’t last much longer, and then, well, I guess I just won’t pay my bills.

And the more I try to work toward getting a better job, or doing things that benefit my community (all that activity everyone thinks is so awesome!), the less time I have for that job anyway. And I’m not the only one in this boat. We are an ocean liner full of people barely treading water, and risking drowning every time we try to get a little closer to where we want to be.*

I probably shouldn’t write this blog post, because now some potential employer is going to find it and think I’m mentally unstable and not particularly wonder why nobody else will hire me, but you know what? I don’t care. If none of us are willing to say, “Hey, it kinda frigging sucks to be us in London right now” then who the hell is going to say it?

And when someone is willing to stand up and say it on our behalf, why on Earth are we disagreeing with them?

Stop giving everyone a reason to say that every young underemployed person in London seems really happy and like they just love it here and would never leave no matter what and actually don’t want any money anyway. Because that’s what all of our elected officials and various representatives hear when we act like we have been. Like everything’s cool.

No. It sucks.

I’d like some people to please try to fix it.

Thank you.

*That’s a terrible metaphor. Why would people in an ocean liner be treading water? That sounds like grounds for a hefty lawsuit if you went on some kind of a luxury cruise and then ended up treading water. Oh, hey, I hope that happens to me.

Because I don’t ride a bike, I don’t really care much about the cyclist perspective because hey, isn’t the idea of democracy supposed to be that every man stands up and speaks for himself and his own interests?*

So, here’s my perspective, as it applies to cyclists being allowed to continue to exist:

1. As a driver**, I don’t want to share the road with bicycles. For one thing, they’re slow. For a more important thing, it scares me because I know that even puny little me could crush a cyclist like a bug under even my compact car. In many instances, sharing the road may be even more scary for cyclists because in that scenario, they’re the bugs. This isn’t a hypothetical, what-if-someone-ever-got-hurt mental experiment. I know many regular cyclists who’ve been injured while properly following traffic laws by people in cars who apparently don’t think traffic laws apply to them. Those drivers probably feel bad. I wish they didn’t have to feel that way. So, cyclists shouldn’t be obliged to share the road with them.

2. As a person who doesn’t like when kids die or are seriously maimed,  I particularly don’t want children on bicycles to have to share the road with cocky motor vehiclists. In fact, I think this is probably the fourth stupidest thing humanity has ever allowed to happen. People have suggested that children under a certain age (14ish) should be allowed to bike on the sidewalk without penalty.

3. As a pedestrian, even though I don’t want cyclists to get killed or seriously maimed by drivers, I also don’t want to share the sidewalk with cyclists. You know how people who ride bikes are always saying that sharing the road with cars is scary? (Yes, you do. See point number one.) The cars are always crowding you out, and moving so much faster than you, and frankly it’s dangerous to mix these two forms of transportation together? Well, pedestrians feel the same way about sharing the sidewalk with cyclists. Especially pedestrians who don’t want to see their kids get run over by bikes (see point number two).

So the only logical solution is to ban bicycles forever!

Wait, that’s not what I was going to say. I guess since cyclists are great for the environment, contribute far less to traffic congestion (especially when in bike lanes) than cars, take up less space for parking, and are generally awesome people living healthy lives, maybe we shouldn’t extinctify them. Even if we are jealous of their tiny carbon footprints. There must be some other solution, but as you can see I’m strongly averse to sharing any part of my life with “those bike people.”

Oh, right: bike lanes.

Bike lanes would be awesome for me as a driver, a parent, and a pedestrian. And if they work out okay for cyclists, too, well… that’s fine, I guess. Frankly, I’d prefer we segregate them anyway.

So maybe we don’t decide to make it official that there won’t be any more bike lanes for ten years, hey, London?

(For those of you just tuning in, possibly from out of town, the city of London, in a bid to meet a certain goal, is considering cutting a great number of plans and services from its plans and services. One of the changes proposed to make a 0.7% increase in the tax levy possible is a reduction in the bike lane program that “will result in no new bike lanes being constructed in the City for the next ten years” (from linked doc). We, the people who don’t actually care about cyclists, think this is a horrible idea.)

*No. It’s really not. Please don’t ever misquote me. Or… just regular quote me, I guess, without adding this note.

**I know what at least none of you is thinking: Amanda, you’re not a driver. That’s true. But I have a driver’s licence and I own a car, so I’m much closer to being a driver than I am to stealing a BMX and throwing it off a bridge into a beaver dam.

So instead of more feigned resolve, I decided this year’s wrap-up post could be something else. To bring you up to speed, I spend New Year’s Eve alone every year, intentionally and happily.

Every year, despite the fact that everyone knows this, I get several invitations (as everyone does, I’m sure) and they come with some cordial pity for my lonesomeness. So, for once and for all, I’m going to explain why I spend New Year’s Eve alone.

I spend New Year’s Eve alone because I am alone. And that’s not necessarily a reflection of my relationship status (but it’s not complicated–I’m the kind of single that only Richard Feynman could have imagined possible (if you get that, I will marry you. No cheating, though. I’ll know if you googled it)) so much as it is a reflection of the fact that I’m intensely introverted and stubbornly independent.

To the first point (intense introversion): I don’t do nostalgia in groups. I do actually quite enjoy taking the evening before the dawn of a new year to reflect on the year past, and I’ll do that tonight, but I can’t do it with people watching. I don’t like input on things I haven’t yet analyzed, synthesized, and categorized for myself. I also dislike the feeling of being part of a mob experience, and the exaggerated emotion of a New Year’s Eve party is essentially that.  I understand that it works for some people, and I’m not criticizing, but it makes me uncomfortable.

To the second point (stubborn independence): As I said, I like to reflect, and to some extent do a little planning for the imminent year. I’m a strong believer in the dictum that if it is to be, it is up to me. And when I take a day to plan my personal life, it’s gut check time. Am I prepared to make it (whatever is to be) happen all on my own? I spend New Year’s Eve alone because it’s a silly symbol for the fact that–whatever becomes of my friendships and other ventures–at the end of the day, I am alone. I’m responsible for me, and accountable to me, and loyal to me. Only I am, and I am only to me. Mostly. And I like it that way. I think it’s a pretty great way to live.

This year, I considered not spending New Year’s Eve alone. I have more people around me that I’d like to see than I’ve ever had in my life before. The truth is, as 2012 draws to a close, I don’t really feel very alone at all. Not only that, but there are so many people in my life, that I don’t even feel scared that I’m relying on just one or two to keep my heart company. So, for a while, I wondered whether it’s time to stop spending the night in solitude, steeling myself for a year of solipsism.

Ultimately, though, I think now is the most important time to gut check. To make sure that even though having all these people who make me happy is wonderful, I’m still me. When I’m locked inside my apartment, and the TV’s off, and the books are down, and I find myself sitting here with nobody to comfort or confirm or entertain for me, I’m still pretty damn okay with my own company.

So that’s why I turned down all your invitations, and why I bailed on the ones I didn’t turn down. And it’s why I’ll do the same next year, and probably every year, I guess.

I don’t, as popular opinion goes, hate New Year’s Eve. I kinda love it. I just love it my way, and I hope you love it yours. I hope everyone had a year they’d be happy to do over if only it weren’t for the brand new awesome promised ahead.

Thanks for being part of my 2012. I hope you’re part of my 2013, too. Probably. I don’t know who’s reading this. I can’t like everyone all the time.

I’ve been very slowly working toward a huge goal: cutting excess packaging out of my life. As I do, I’ll blog about the little life hacks I discover that let me cut out the excess, so that if you’re so inclined, hopefully you can do it, too.

For the purpose of life, my definition of excess packaging is this:

Excess packaging is any disposable packaging, container, or carrier of any kind whose consumption could feasibly be avoided, either by using an alternate product, or by foregoing the packaged item altogether.

Note that my definition does not say conveniently avoided.

There are, of course, the easy adjustments, like using reusable grocery bags (we were all doing that already, right?) instead of paper or plastic ones, reusable lunch containers and cutlery instead of sandwich bags and plastic forks, and refillable juice containers and water bottles instead of drinking boxes.

Then there are the more difficult things that dawned on me like an apocalypse only after I was on the lookout. Personal hygiene items stand out here, not so much because it’s harder to find alternatives but because it’s harder to give up the tried and true. One word: tampons. Personal hygiene will get its own post at a later date, and it will likely be more… um, intimate… than other posts.

And on that note, there’s toilet paper.
I decided that toilet paper is not a case of unnecessary packaging. I can’t feasibly make my own. I’m not willing to play wartime and wipe my butt with strips of newspaper. I love the Earth, but I’m sorry–I don’t love it that much. I will, however, buy the triple rolls in the big bag (I’ll stock up when they’re on sale), because it minimizes packaging. That’s the best I can do.

This isn’t an impossible journey.
I’m not going to set myself up for failure by denying myself toilet paper. It’s just about doing the absolute best I can, and I hope it will inspire others to do the best they can, wherever that falls on the spectrum of good-doing.

To that end, I’m also going to try to include a breakdown of what resultant change there is in my living costs. In some cases, costs will go up, and in others down, but for those of you that might choose a few things to pick up and try, I hope it will help you make informed choices.

I know how daunting it seems, but what I’ve discovered in the past couple of months is that it’s mostly a matter of habit and routine. I’ll go into foodstuffs more soon, but for example, I’ve begun to cook and bake from scratch more than I did before because I don’t buy packaging-heavy convenience foods. Now that I’ve developed a habit of planning ahead, keeping standard ingredients on hand, and leaving time for food prep, I don’t feel like avoiding all that packaging is even inconvenient. My cooking is a lot healthier, but I can’t list that as a pro here, because the converse con is that I’m also baking more, and it’s not healthy at all. But that’s really a self-control issue–the issue being, of course, that I have none.

Why is this ongoing?
Because, as I said, it’s funny the things you don’t think of right away. For example, I didn’t think about Kleenex boxes (or for that matter, Kleenex) until the first time I reached for a package of them at the grocery store. And I bought it anyway because in the moment, I needed Kleenex and I had no viable alternative. But now… do I switch to handkerchiefs? Do I ask my kids to? Is that even sanitary? Immunocompromised old men do it, so can’t we?

It’s not all as straight-forward as it sounds. Some of the most common items in my life didn’t even occur to me at first. So I’ll chronicle my journey, and whatever I’m fortunate enough to learn, as I go along. I welcome help from all of you!

It turns out it’s not crazy. A little research revealed I’m not even close to being the first one to think of it. (Isn’t that always the way?) Hopefully, that means I’m also not the only person in my neighbourhood who would want to participate in one.

Community Composting initiatives take many forms and operate on a variety of models, with each group choosing the one best suited to them based on the needs of participants, the resources available, and the expected outcomes.

What I’d like to do is build a city-wide network of Community Composting groups that can share information, ideas, and resources.

Why Community Composting?
It’s more than just a way to get by when the city won’t step up. There are real benefits to Community Composting as opposed to city-run programs. 

• A grass roots approach allows each group to be just the size that makes sense and is manageable. One group might be a single apartment building while another is an entire neighbourhood of residential homes.

• The service provided can also be tailored to the needs of the community. It could be picking up waste and taking it to a community compost site; or it could be delivering and setting up backyard compost bins, and teaching people how to use them.

• The product (really great soil) can be used in a way that best benefits the community. Perhaps that means keeping it in the community by paying dividends   of composted soil to each participant; or maybe it’s selling the compost to fund the program.

• The not-so-good environmental impacts of large composting facilities are avoided when Community Composting groups use smaller locations that don’t require power or machinery to operate.

• Community-driven projects increase the cohesiveness of neighbourhoods, and give citizens an opportunity to actively engage with the people around them.

How would the network operate?
Since it’s a community project, the “rules and procedures” wouldn’t be determined by me alone, but when I picture it in my head, these are the highlights:

• The operators of each Community Composting group would meet at regular intervals to share ideas, report on progress, and guide the network as it grows.

• The network would have a website, phone number, et cetera (that means a Twitter account), which would otherwise not be a possibility for each group alone.

• The network would thus act as a hub to link potential participants with the right group, or to help communities start a new group.

• At the outset, assuming anyone at all wants to help me, a smaller committee would likely be formed to build the network, since not everyone will want to be involved in the operations outside of their own group. I see such a committee continuing to exist so that there are always people working to maintain a cohesive network.

• Where there are gaps, but a few people want to participate without organizing, it’s my hope that other network communities would offer the use of their sites, within reason, rather than leave those few without the opportunity. In fact, I imagine that in the beginning, some communities will be sparse and cover larger areas until participating increases.

• The network, in my opinion, should set some standards and expectations as far as the cost (if any) to participate in the Community Composting program and how to handle funds raised, whether through fees or the sale of soil.

So… who’s in?
If anyone is, I’d like to organize an informal meeting to discuss the topic and provide some further information. All would be welcome, and there would be no obligation to help with it, participate in it, or really, ever speak to me again afterward.

Send an email off to compost@amandastratton.com, whether you’re interested in being an organizer, or you just want your name on a list to be notified when someone’s willing to pick up your egg shells and banana peels at your door.

Or, heck, go ahead and send me an email if you think this is a stupid idea and want to tell me why, too. I like feedback.

As always, my blog is also open for comments if you want to share your note with the class.

Most importantly, go have a great day!

I’m glad I chose to give up the car first because it’s turned out to be a lot easier than I thought it would be. As a bonus, it’s also helped me improve my life in a dozen other ways. I don’t want to get all hyperbolic on you, but I think it’s one of the best decisions I’ve made lately. (And that’s not only because I normally make very bad decisions.)

My ideas of what it would mean to give up my car were woefully wrong, so let me bust some myths about the vehicularly-limited lifestyle.

MYTH: PUBLIC TRANSIT IS EXPENSIVE
Fact: I won’t say it’s cheap*, but relative to car ownership, yeah it is

My car was costing me about $350 a month (and that’s without a car loan to pay) just to keep it insured and filled and anointed with all the right oils.

A bus pass costs me $81 for the month. I spent about $20 on bus tickets for the kids.

So that’s a $249 cut to my basic getting-around costs.

The real savings, however, probably come from the fact that I don’t go shopping on impulse anymore or buy more items than I need (because I know I have to carry that crap home, yo). I also don’t stay out as late (read: I don’t spend so much on food and drink). I know in a way these are limitations, but to me it just feels like getting rid of even more excess in my life.

I will, however, admit that I buy more coffee because I have to stand around and wait sometimes, and I don’t know, call me a victim of marketing, but I think coffee is the perfect standing-around-and-waiting accessory. Even so, I’ve only spent about $15 on coffee in the past month.

All in, I’d guess that ditching the wheels (figuratively-speaking; I stored my vehicle responsibly) has directly or indirectly cut about $300 out of my monthly budget.

*For the record, one trip on an LTC bus is $2.75 for an adult. Buy tickets, and five trips are $9.50 ($1.90 each). Kids are even cheaper.

MYTH: LOST TIME
Fact: Gained Time 

Lengthening travel and commute time feels like a bad idea. But a funny thing happened on my way to everywhere I went, much more slowly than before: I increased my productivity.

I read the news on my BlackBerry while I walk home from dropping the kids off.
I do the same, or read a book, while I’m on the bus. In effect, by multi-tasking in my travel time, I save myself time later. Sure, it may take longer to get places, but I’d have set aside time for the things I’m doing on the bus anyway, so in the end I’m saving the dedicated driving time.

And best of all, when I’m going somewhere with my kids, I can interact with them, talk to them, read a book with them, look around and point to random things on the street with them, et cetera. So, in addition to productivity time, I gained more family time.

MYTH: THE BUS IS ALWAYS LATE
Fact: It’s not.

In the past six weeks, for me, one bus was significantly late. If anything, I’ve found the buses are more often (but not always) ahead of schedule, which is kind of equally annoying if you don’t know which stops are timed stops, but if you do, is not so bad.

MYTH:  WEIRD SHIT HAPPENS ON THE BUS
Fact: Welcome to humanity

Weird shit happens wherever there are people. Pierce your bubble and go join some of it. That being said, I’ve never yet felt threatened or unsafe on the bus, even while riding the busy routes with my kids late at night. Sometimes there are people who are smelly, or who are talking crazy to themselves, or who talk to my kids in a way that is mildly creepy. But those things aren’t so bad, really, I promise. My advice to you if they really bother you that much is this: get over yourself.

TO BE FAIR

I did say at the outset that anyone in the same position as me should be able to do it. So, here are my confessions about why I’m lucky I can, and where you might run into problems if you’re not as lucky as I am:

• I live at the intersection of one arterial bus route and one that goes straight down town. As in, both bus stops are visible from my front door.

• I have an ex-husband who lives nearby and has a car, so I’m not terribly worried about emergencies with the kids, or what I’ll do if they need to go to an out-of-town birthday party (happened already). When I was not fortunate enough to have an ex-husband, I admit I’d have been hesitant to give up our car and not have a way to, for example, get the kids to the hospital. But, you know, that’s what ambulances are for, right? :/

• I don’t need it to get to work. That’s the kicker, really, for everyone, I guess. I know that for a lot of people, getting to work wouldn’t just be inconvenient or time-consuming without a car, it would be impossible. But as more of us who can choose to ride public transportation do, we’ll see the transit systems grow, and each time, more and more people will have the opportunity to use it for all of their essential travelling.

So I guess what I’m saying is…

Let’s get on that.

This post is a part of a series I’m doing in which I give up stuff. I introduced it a while ago, but this is the first post about actually giving up a thing and not just talking about it.

Whether you’re signing petitions, engaging in dialogue with your representatives, or helping nominate candidates, the more you are involved, the stronger our democracy becomes.

I don’t, however, think that just being angry about things is very effective. If we want open dialogue, then let’s all be the first to go beyond voicing anger in our attempts to engage with government.

A recent leadnow campaign seeks to smack down Motion 312, which I wrote about the other day, and which I will only address again to say this: even Woodworth, who brought the motion, expects it to be almost unanimously voted down. Even he has already said that he expects almost all the MPs of every political affiliation to vote against it. Inciting anger and writing to your MP is a nuisance and a waste of time and our combined political sway.

So, after seeing the roughly one hundredth tweet urging everyone to “Stop the covert attempt to criminalize abortion in #Canada. Tell your MP to defeat #M312 #cdnpoli http://www.leadnow.ca/defend-our-reproductive-rights … via @leadnowca” (they all say exactly the same thing), I posted this:

And it’s occurred to me: why don’t we ever say thank you? 

Not sure what to thank anyone for? Want to know how your MP has been voting about things? openparliament.ca offers a lot of information that is much easier to sort than it is on the Parliament site itself. You can look up your MP and see how they’ve been voting, and what they’ve been saying in the House.

I don’t know who runs that site, by the way, but it’s kept admirably up-to-date. I understand that some of us don’t have anyone we feel we should thank. But, you know what, some of us do. So let’s. If you can’t thank your own, thank someone else. Thank the representatives who are doing a good job of speaking for the party you like the best. Thank someone who said something you really liked. Thank someone who said something you didn’t like, but said it respectfully. Just thank someone.

Because I also said this not long ago:

And it applies to political engagement as well and truly as it does to anything else.

Most of our MPs (probably even mine, pictured above) will vote against M-312, so why don’t we all send a thank you note to them? If you’ve ever had a thankless job (being a representative is one, I’d think) then I’m sure you’re aware of how little inclined one feels to seek out engagement with people who only ever want to speak to you when they’re angry at you.

Let’s take the first step to stop that and start asking our representatives to talk to us more.

I think that’s a wonderful thing—to be engaged—and I wanted to raise my kids in a culture where it’s normal and you don’t get people looking at you like you’re a freak because you know what’s going on in Parliament. I was raised in a place where these things don’t particularly matter, and most people vote for the name they know the best every four or five years and then never think about it again.

So, to be sure, I definitely prefer a culture of citizen engagement to one without. I do feel wary, though, about the dangers of certain citizen organizations.

There is a danger of portraying a false univocity when a small group of people represents themselves as the voice for a very large group of people, many of whom may not even know about its existence. Those groups, as they tend to become something of a lobbying organization, have a great onus on them to ensure that they are making a significant effort to make themselves known to the whole of the population that they seek to represent.

Door-to-door canvassing is of course not necessary, but a diligent effort to make as much of the entire community aware of the organization,and to make all affected citizens feel truly welcomed, is imperative if such a group seeks to have its recommendations on behalf of citizens hold any water with a governing body.

100% awareness is never possible, of course, and that’s why those groups should bear in mind that they aren’t an elected body with a mandate. They are a special interest group that represents, often, just a fraction of a demographic. What’s more, there is a tendency to coalesce around a central idea and dissension is discouraged—not formally, but by human nature. So within the group, a false unanimity might develop, and its leaders should also do their due diligence to try to prevent that, so that the organization might better represent the ranging beliefs of the citizens it hopes to speak for.

Anything short of an earnest effort that covers all those bases prevents what could have been a responsible citizens’ organization from being anything more than a special interest hangout of chums. And the last thing anybody needs is another old boys club helping make the rules.

I go to the bus stop fifteen minutes early on the pretense of being prepared, when in fact it is to steal that quarter of an hour from my schedule and make it guiltless reading time.

I run to my cozy reading chair every evening and devour words until I fall asleep, knowing but forgetting in the moment that I have a jillion other things I could and should be doing.

I wake up in the morning thinking about fictional characters. (That boy who used to occupy my mind didn’t even cross until late this afternoon because I’ve been entertaining thoughts of Dunstable Ramsay instead.)

I miss meals because I’m reading.

I started watching Enterprise two weeks ago, and I’ve still only seen the first episode.

I don’t know what caused this renewed passion for reading, but I like it. I like it a very great deal. Maybe it’s because I took this term off school, so I no longer have the enduring guilt of “wasting my time” on what I want to read when I should be reading what I need to read.

Maybe it’s that life threw my some lemons while I had awesome books in the house and I remembered that long-forgotten trick: I completely forget about everything having anything to do with the real world when I’m reading a good book. Everything.

Or I suppose it’s also possible that I moved to a new city, and got a new library that I’m not banned from.

Whatever it is, keep it coming. This is the best I’ve felt in ages.

Specifically, I wanted to address a couple of things he’s reported to have said, beginning with this one:

Woodworth says he wanted to clear up some of the criticism he’s heard about his motion, referred to as 312. First, it wouldn’t change any law, he said.

Kitchener Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth speaks with the media about his motion to study the definition of the human being, during a news conference in Ottawa, Monday.

“So will abortion become illegal if motion 312 passes? No. The only result of motion 312 will be that Parliament and all Canadians will be better informed,” he said.

The only reason redefining the start of life won’t affect abortion laws is that there are none.

Well, that’s not true. It’s entirely illegal to abort a fetus without the pregnant woman’s consent, and also to procure one from an unqualified medical practitioner, or to provide such an abortion. But to the best of my knowledge, that’s all the laws about it.

Abortion is “not illegal” (sorry for the clumsy wording) because–and only because–it does not count as murder because life has not begun yet. If you say that life begins at for example, 26 weeks (at that point, 90% of babies born are expected to survive, statistically speaking), then ending the life of a fetus of a greater age than 26 weeks should technically count as murder.

Of course, simply having a committee discuss it and report back won’t change the legal definition of when life begins, but I believe it sets us down the road to doing that, and loath as I am to argue the slippery slope, I am right now. To say it wouldn’t change abortion laws is a bit of tricky wording on Woodworth’s part, and I have to assume as an intelligent man, he knows that.

Mind you, that’s mostly moot at the moment because you’d be awfully hard-pressed (but not completely out of luck) trying to find a facility that will perform an abortion past 16 weeks. Many won’t perform one past 12 weeks’ gestation.

And reportedly he went on to say…

“There really are people who believe that the only way to justify abortion is to pretend that a child is not a human being until the moment of complete birth. And so they wish to preserve that pretence,” he said.

I actually kind of agree with him on this. I think there are people who either choose to believe life begins at emergence from the birth canal, or simply do see it that way. I don’t know that it’s a wrong way to see it, but I also don’t think that it’s wrong to think life might begin sometime before that. It would certainly be difficult to tell expectant parents (or even moreso, the parents of a stillborn) that there was never any life there.

But for Woodworth to suggest that people who undergo abortions simply turn a blind eye to some greater morality is erroneous and mildly offensive. I don’t doubt that for some it’s an easy decision, but at the same time, I know that the choice between preventing a fetus from becoming a person and allowing it to is not one made lightly.

The fact that there is no room in this debate for that admission–that it’s a difficult, morally-vexing, emotionally-trying thing to do no matter how pro-choice one is–is disheartening. It means that there are thousands of people (probably men as well as women) who tuck those feelings away in the shame pocket and carry them around there forever. I think we need to find a place where we can discuss this issue in real terms, and it hasn’t happened yet. I don’t imagine it will for as long as the pro-choicers are forced to tow the line of zero moral ambiguity in order to counter the anti-choicers.

Perhaps Woodworth actually has a point here that we should be allowed to discuss the reality of the decision women face–even if we are pro-choice–and not pretend that it isn’t what I think most of us know that it is.

I’m sneaking this into the stupid girls’ guide because it has some basic political fact-checking, and I apologize if it was a little too not-factual to be there. But there it is anyway. Thanks for reading.

Sources for this Article
CBC News
Motion 312 on Woodworth’s Site
Wikipedia – Fetal Viability
The Criminal Code