Offensive to Some Normal People

Today, two stories about normal people pushing back at the fetus fetishists.

From Wisconisn:

Peggy Bell didn’t know what to do with the tiny plastic fetus she received in the mail, so she recycled it.

*snerk*

She also got mad.

“I don’t care what literature you send me, but I just think they went too far,” said Bell, who sent the group a letter expressing her feelings. “I was offended. I think it was in poor taste.”

She found the plastic fetus in her mailbox Tuesday in a manila mailer addressed to “Resident.” The model of a roughly 2-inch fetus came with a card detailing the development of an 11- to 12-week-old “pre-born.”

Dave Obernderger, project chair for the Racine chapter of Wisconsin Right to Life, said people react to the issue with varying degrees of emotion, but his group meant the mailing to be informative not offensive.

“We hope that she and everybody else that has received the model that they take it in a positive way,” he said. “We meant it as an educational piece.”

Now, isn’t it nice that the newspaper — and a telly station — thought this newsworthy?

The next story is closer to home, from Hamilton, Ontario:

The city has pulled a pro-life ad from its bus shelters after a handful of complaints.

Don Hull, the city’s director of transit, said he made the call after a Westdale shelter was defaced with pro-choice graffiti early this week. His office has also received three complaints about the ads that went up Dec. 31.

“We don’t think it’s appropriate for that medium to be used for controversial community messaging,” said Hull.

We at Birth Pangs will not reproduce the ad. Go to the Spectator link to see it. It shows a woman’s very pregnant belly with this copy: ‘9 months. The length of time abortion is allowed in Canada. No medical reason needed.’ At the bottom: ‘Abortion. Have we gone too far?’

Councillor Brian McHattie said he asked for the ads to come down after his office heard from upset residents. “For me personally, it definitely was offensive.”

These ads are part of a nationwide campaign maybe coming to your town too. Fredericton refused them.

Get ready to clutch your pearls and SHRRIEEEEEK to your councillors. And don’t forget to call the local paper. :wink:

UPDATE: More ads pulled from public transit in Newfoundland.

Comments

  1. says

    Re: Hamilton transit ads — London Right to Life has purchased ad space on London buses expressing similar anti-abortion sentiments. Almost shat myself this past week when I saw one.

  2. fern hill says

    No time for shitting, mattt. Time for SHRIEEEEKING to the transit co. I know you got the pearls to clutch. :wink:

  3. BLANCHE DU BOIS says

    BLANCHE immediately thought of a wonderful old song. And, being BLANCHE, has changed a few words.

    there will be shriekin, there will be shriekin,
    There will be shrieken, from me
    Before we’ll let this pass
    We will shriek’em flat on their ass
    We will have CHOICE, yes we will
    We will be free……

    There will be yellin….

    Never mind the poils, just make noise! Thousands of years of polite silence did us no good at all.

  4. says

    Wait, what was offensive about the ads in Hamilton? The image of a pregnant woman, the factual statement of the law in Canada, or the simple question at the end?

  5. fern hill says

    Blaise Alleyne: Yes, all three.

    Images of idealized pregnancy are used to imply that all pregnancies are healthy and risk-free. Some of the more rabid fetus fetishists maintain that there is no medical reason for abortion at all.

    The statements are true. The implication is that it should not be as evidenced by the question — have we gone too far?

    The question is the kicker. These are the people who want to recriminalize abortion, ring it round with rules and regulations and wait times and mandatory counselling. They want to penalize the doctors and the women. (Upcoming post on Canadian fetus fetishists opining on jail time for women who have abortions.)

    There is no law on abortion in Canada. There shouldn’t be. I’m damn proud there isn’t. Ain’t nobody’s business.

  6. says

    I’m shocked that you’re offended by an image of a pregnant woman, first of all.

    Second, people who maintain that there is never any medical reason for abortion (ie. to save the mother’s life) are mistaken, but that is not the implication of the ad. The ad only states that abortions can be performed with or without medical reason at any time during pregnancy, which, as you point out, is fact.

    The question does imply that people ought to think about this because, when asked, a majority of Canadians do not support the current lack of abortion restrictions in the country.

    The recent Environics poll quoted in that link showed that 62% of Canadians favoured some amount of protection, even if only with respect to late-term or partial-birth abortions.

    The ad points out that the reality in Canadian is that no protection whatsoever exists (animals enjoy much more protection than a 8-month old unborn child who could survive outside the womb).

    Sure, those who believe there should be protection from conception are in the minority, but so are people like you who apparently believe that lawlessness is the answer.

  7. fern hill says

    Oh gord, we got a fetus fetishist here.

    It’s Blog for Choice Day and I’m tired. I’m not dealing with this. At least not now.

  8. says

    Well Blaise.

    If only, all those particular statistics were gathered from people truly educated on the topic.
    Alas. They have possibly gotten their information from liars and miscreants hiding behind the bible, who for whatever twisted reasons in their head expect everyone to live under their own theocratic religious nonsense. I mean, I support freedom of religion and all, but those totalitarian cafeteria Catholic types just irk my minerva. I have no tolerence for intolerance. (see if you can get the joke)

    Alas. That slippery slope. Where is the line? Where shall the line be?
    How many Hoops can we place in the way? How many AU-THOR-A-TAYS! would pronounce from their ivory tower that they just think a woman’s own reason aren’t good enough for them? I mean, it’s not their body, nor their life that may be in jeopardy, so what the hey?
    The ad, is misleading: It doesn’t SAY, what the actual numbers are, or the reasons for those numbers.
    Just makes the assumption for the viewer that women are gettin! abortions! AT NINE MONTHS! JUST because!
    Which, anyone with a brain? Knows is complete ca ca. Sadly, with all the misinformation perpetrated by those who cannot get a fact nor an ounce of sense or compassion for real breathing people in their heads beyond their own blind set of complete hogwash, such things need a translation. Which of course wasn’t provided. Sin of omission and all that.

    Hows that Blaise? Anymore Tecknical questions?

  9. says

    hehe There seems to be a whole lot of namely calling, stereotyping and generalizations here. Fetus fetishist? A claim that Environics polls “liars and miscreants hiding behind the bible”?

    My point is simple: many people *do* have problems with abortion being entirely unrestricted; Canada is quite alone compared to other developed countries in this respect with it’s complete lack of legislation regarding the matter.

    What’s wrong with discussing what limits, if any, should be placed?

    At the risk of dragging out the discussion with people who don’t seem terribly interested in talking to me, what about the recent publicity over fetal homicide bills? (e.g. situations where a child is wanted and a women is murdered (along with her unborn child) or abused/assaulted in such a way that a miscarriage occurs) Many Canadians find it troubling that the offender would get a stiffer penalty for assaulting their dog than for killing their (wanted) unborn child.

    *shrugs*

    I don’t have much tolerance for intolerance either, which is why I’m a bit shocked that some people are afraid of having a frank and honest discussion about the issue.

  10. fern hill says

    Blaise, do some reading here. We satirize, mock and deride here. We started this site partly because we’re done trying to have frank and honest discussions with people who think that a law providing extra punishment to a fetus-harmer somehow ‘protects’ a fetus.

  11. says

    Blaise, get your fucking hands off women’s bodies! And quit the fucking “I’m pocked and ashalled” shtick. We’ve heard it too often.

    Women’s reproductive rights are human rights. I support human rights and you, obviously, do not.

    No run along and play with your plastic blob, will ya?

  12. Gigi says

    I’ve been biting my tongue here because there is a personal slant here – and yes, Blaise, it’s who you think it is. This is the post I have been resisting posting for the past two days.

    I have no problem articulating my problem with the ad: it is deceptive.

    It implies that women are waiting until the day before they give birth to change their minds and whimsically opt for an abortion rather than go ahead with the birth.

    Who is getting an abortion at nine months? Why are they getting an abortion that late? How often does it happen?

    I do not believe there needs to be regulation substituting for my common sense. I don’t want children. I have never wanted children. And to suggest that I would wait until month 9 before doing anything about it is lunacy. And disingenuous. And controlling. And patronizing. And a whole host of other unpleasantries.

    For the record, my pregnancy lasted two weeks and two days. That would be three days after sensing something was “off”. And while technically, I didn’t have an abortion because the second blood test (also known as the “in denial” or “do that again because that is not possible” blood test) showed the HCG levels were dropping (i.e. I was no longer pregnant), that would have been over as fast as humanly possible.

    There are SOMEPEOPLE who would think that because I don’t want children I should join the nuns or some other order of people who live a life of abstinence. Good luck with that. When you get that abstinence thing down with teenagers – over whom you hypothetically have a measure of (parental) control – then come chat with me.

    Maybe next life.

  13. says

    Blaise Alleyne said: “Many Canadians find it troubling that the offender would get a stiffer penalty for assaulting their dog than for killing their (wanted) unborn child.”

    How can it be possible to have a civil and honest discussion with someone, such as you, who plays the obfuscation game? Many Canadians find it upsetting that femicidal killers get lighter sentences than those who commit bank fraud, say. We are keeping the focus upon women, pregnant or not, and the harm that is forced upon them.

    But don’t let me stop your apples and oranges switching fun.

  14. says

    I don’t find the ad deceptive, but I guess people will interpret it through their own lenses. I don’t see the suggestion that women are waiting until month 9 to deal with unwanted pregnancies implicit in the message, but rather the notion that abortion is treated the same under the law whether it’s week 3 or month 9. If you go to the website (which I don’t really expect anyone here to do *shrugs*), there are lots of stats collected on abortion. Late term abortions aren’t very common for obvious reasons, but they still happen. And though most abortions take place in the first trimester, a considerable amount still happen in the second.

    It seems clear to me that the intention behind the ad was to promote discussion and commentary such as this, and the effect and publicity from banning it after three complaints seems only to draw more attention to the campaign. Many Canadians are conflicted over what regulation/legislation, if any, should exist.

    We are keeping the focus upon women, pregnant or not, and the harm that is forced upon them.

    The issue of protecting a women’s wanted unborn child is focused on preventing harm to women, no? I didn’t think that was apples and oranges, even if it was a bit of a flippant remark.

    We satirize, mock and deride here. We started this site partly because we’re done trying to have frank and honest discussions with people who think that a law providing extra punishment to a fetus-harmer somehow ‘protects’ a fetus.

    Duly noted! This will probably be my last post.

  15. Gigi says

    I don’t find the ad deceptive, but I guess people will interpret it through their own lenses.

    I suppose so. And yet my lens doesn’t involve a woman waking up three days before her due date and frivolously deciding to abort.

    I don’t see the suggestion that women are waiting until month 9 to deal with unwanted pregnancies implicit in the message, but rather the notion that abortion is treated the same under the law whether it’s week 3 or month 9.

    See above.

    At 9 days or 9 months, why do we need to supplant our common sense with your desired regulations? At week three or month nine, it’s up to the mother. Is that the problem? That it’s up to her and not to you or society at large?

    There is no reason except that this is a transparent tactic to start regulating pregnancy. A foothold situation. I see you’ve already brought up second trimester. What then? First? Back to the good old days of knitting needles and coat hangers?

  16. says

    Blaise Alleyne – The ad is offensive because it’s a deceptive and misleading crock of shit. Unless you enjoy being misled and lied to, you should find it offensive too.

    It depicts an almost fully-term pregnant woman, looking as though she’s enjoying a normal and happy pregnancy, with the ad copy “No medical reason needed”. This suggests that women near the end of a pregnancy often suddenly change their minds and think “Nah, I don’t want to do this anymore, it won’t match my new shoes”, and get an abortion.

    Not only is this insulting to women in the extreme, it’s pure unadulterated bullshit, it DOES NOT HAPPEN, and pro-choicers are sick unto death of this false meme being disseminated by authoritarian anti-choicers desperate to intervene into womens’ rights.

    Hope this #$&!! helps.

  17. says

    ((I feel like I’ve overstayed my welcome (if I’ve ever had any), yet clarification/rebuttal seems in order. Feel free to tell me to leave, otherwise I don’t mind the abuse and I’ll probably continue to comment as long as this seems somewhat productive. :shock: ))

    First, a clarification:
    Late term abortions are rare and common sense clearly leads to most abortions happening earlier in the pregnancy. But late term abortions do happen, for whatever reasons. I wasn’t trying to say that women make frivolous decisions and have abortions at the last minute for frivolous reasons, nor do I believe that.

    Second, if the discussion is to continue I believe the heart of the matter must be addressed: what is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.

    (This is not to suggest that an unplanned pregnancy isn’t terrifying or to belittle it in any way, but the argument is that while abortion may often be psychologically complex, and even practically complex, it is not morally complex.)

    The question “what is the unborn?” is the reason why Canada’s lack of legislation is an issue. (The only reason there is no legislation is because parliament has failed to redraft legislation that was struck down by the Supreme Court on the basis of “unequal access”.) More specifically, the availability of elective abortion all the way up to the moment of birth is only acceptable if the unborn is not considered a person until after birth, which is currently the case. In Canada, an unborn child that has not completely proceeded from the body of its mother is not considered a person under the law.

    At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the pro-life argument is as follows:
    – Intentionally killing an innocent human being is a serious moral wrong.
    – Elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
    Therefore, elective abortion is a serious moral wrong.

    The second premise is obviously the controversial point. However, at 9 months, is it really that controversial? The unborn can clearly survive out of the womb. The only difference between a born and unborn child at this point is the environment, and your environment does not define what you are.

    If the unborn is considered a human being at nine months, it would be intellectually dishonest not to discuss a more appropriate limit for elective abortion. And it would be slightly problematic not to address the issue if the first premise is accepted regarding the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

    That is the point I am trying to raise, hopefully better articulated here, and that was the point that I saw when I first viewed the ads. If you disagree with any of the premises, they should be easy to identify and refute. If not, there should be no harm in discussing the matter. And either way, no offense taken.

    (That is, no offense taken to the argument in particular. Clearly, people are offended by the ads by reading into them in different ways. I just don’t believe that was the intention of the ads and I think people who find them offensive for other reasons are jumping to unnecessary and unintended conclusions, applying stereotypes and generalizations and taking the statements to the extreme.)

    Third, “why do we need to supplant our common sense with your desired regulations?” We supplement common sense with regulation all the time and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with inherently wrong with that; it depends entirely on the regulation. Is it common sense not to steal or punch someone? Yet there are laws against those things. But, I think this branch of the discussion is off-topic and that we’re at a complete disconnect. It has to go back to the “what is the unborn?” question. Because, if it isn’t human, then regulating common sense would be quite unnecessarily authoritarian, I agree. If the unborn is a human being, however, then regulating common sense becomes quite important. (See above.)

    “At week three or month nine, it’s up to the mother.” Mother of what? Mother seems to imply child, and usually we don’t let mother’s decide whether their children live or die. But, certainly, if the unborn is not a human being, then it would be a ridiculous restriction upon a woman’s freedom. Again, back to the basic question.

    Lastly, the coat hanger argument also assumes what needs to be proven – that the unborn is not human. Unless you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human, you are making the highly questionable claim that because some people die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so. If the unborn isn’t human, then the state ought to step in and make abortion safe and legal. Again, the talking point from the ads begins at nine months. What is the unborn?

    The Main Corollary:
    If you agree with statements above, it’s only logical to discuss up to what point elective abortion should be permitted.

    As for my personal opinion, I don’t actually have a clear view on what I think the law should be like, though I believe it’s unacceptable not to have a law. There are a wide variety of possibilities (not that I’m endorsing or denouncing any of them by simply listing them off!):
    – Abortion was decriminalized before it’s legalized, there’s more than one alternative to unrestricted legal access
    – Different rules could be applied to different gestational periods, since the basis in Canadian law is personhood status which is legally obtained at a certain level of development
    – Parental consent laws may be relevant for minors
    – Different regulations for different reasons for abortion, ie. distinguishing between “I don’t want a baby”, “I don’t want a baby with Down’s” and “I might die if I carry this pregnancy to term”
    – Rules regarding when access to abortion ought to be guaranteed, state funded and accessible (e.g. the obvious candidate would be when the mother’s life is in danger)
    – etc..

    Again, I’m not putting forth any particular suggestion, just demonstrating that “abortion legislation” != “total criminalization”.

  18. Gigi says

    Really, I’d say what you have “demonstrated” is “foothold logic” at its finest.

    As we are (seemingly) all in agreement that women do not wake up days from their due date and decide, “You know what? I’ve changed my mind,” what is there to legally protect AGAINST? Do you sincerely think they randomly do it at eight months?

    The idea of “legal protection” at nine months is a transparent and simplistic attempt to shift the discussion ro “when is it human?” from “why does your belief that 1 cell, 256 cells, or even 16777216 cells constitutes a ‘human’ override my worth, decision, and beliefs?”

    I maintain that no legal protection is require whether based on chronology or belief (“cause for seeking abortion”). Why do you feel that you need to substituted your value system for anyone else’s? Do you sincerely believe that your judgment is so much clearer than mine? Than women in general?

    I also find it an interesting psychological quirk that so many equate “innocent life” with “punishment for having sex” because, really that’s what it boils down to. Especially when people start positing idiotic concepts like “birth control is part of the slippery slope.”

    OK, I’m pretty much done with this subject.

  19. says

    We’re in agreement that women generally don’t just make last minute frivolous decisions. But late term abortions do happen. Rare, yes, but not non-existent.

    But, question completely dodged – when is it a human? How late is too late anyways?

    The idea of “legal protection” at nine months is a transparent and simplistic attempt to shift the discussion to “when is it human?” from “why does your belief that 1 cell, 256 cells, or even 16777216 cells constitutes a ‘human’ override my worth, decision, and beliefs?”

    It’s intentionally transparent and simple! How can we talk about abortion without asking what the unborn is? If we’re so sure it’s not human at x number of weeks, then what is so underhanded about asking that question? If it’s not human, access to abortion isn’t threatened at all. Why would anyone be afraid to defend the claim that the unborn isn’t human?

    The question of personhood is powerfully related to one’s own worth, decisions and beliefs. That’s why the first major accomplishment of the feminist movement was to gain the legal status of personhood for women. But if a second person is involved, freedoms change dramatically because the rights of two people must be respected. Again, assuming what needs to be proven… if the unborn is human, the rights of one human being override the freedoms of another every day, they must be balanced.

    Psychological quirks connecting sex and abortion are interesting on both sides. The “punishment for having sex” bit is clearly ridiculous, but so is the fear of answering the magic question. It seems as if people are afraid that if they grant the unborn humanity at any point before birth, they won’t be able to have sex anymore. Hopefully, that statement is as disconnected from people’s actual thinking as the belief that pregnancy is a punishment for having sex.

    I’m not making a subjective claim about my judgement versus someone else’s. I’m making an objective moral claim. It could be wrong. But whether it’s right or wrong is quite disconnected from my own personal beliefs or value system. And I’m talking about the law, which is based on many objective moral claims (stealing is wrong, killing an innocent human being is wrong, etc.).

    Let me be even more transparent.

    I, personally, believe the unborn is human. I also believe that if it isn’t human, one should be able to show that it isn’t human (otherwise, we would err on the side of caution). If someone believes that the unborn isn’t a human being, but is unwilling or unable to show that it isn’t a human being, then I question that belief.

    The discussion beginning at nine months is a “foothold” of sorts, because many Canadians think the unborn is human then. It’s common ground we ought to be able to agree on.

    Why should anyone be afraid of such a “foothold” if they are confident that the unborn isn’t human at earlier stages when abortion is common? And if they aren’t confident, then why are they defending abortion?

    (I’m not very good at keep it brief… sorry for the length.)

  20. fern hill says

    I’m not reading all that. (Why are fetus fetishists so long-winded? And so predictable?)

    Blaise, if you believe that your stay here is ‘productive’, knock yourself out. I can guarantee you won’t convert any regular readers.

    But maybe you’ll learn something.

  21. says

    Okay Blaise, here is my belief, and I can lay it out with less verbosity than you can.

    I was pregnant. It was my choice. During the gestation, I could feel something that I believe I was growing inside my womb. It came from the collision of my ova and one sperm that was let in, from the man that I chose to let into my body. I wanted a daughter, but I did not believe that this fragile collection of developing cells was a human being until I held her in my arms.

    From the moment the umbilical cord was cut, my nurturing role shifted from an internal to an external focus.

    Is this belief too simple and too grounded in reality for your tautologically impaired mind to grasp?

  22. says

    Blaise obviously doesn’t have any idea WHY a late term abortion would be performed, other than the frivilous, selfish woman deciding on a whim that she’s not into having a baby. Do some homework.

  23. Gigi says

    Ok, I’m going to bite here. It’s my argumentative streak, I’m afraid.

    At what juncture does this “human” require protection from the woman who would be its mother? From the moment of conception? Month three? Until he dies of old age?

    Are all women mythological harpies prone to shredding their own limb from limb?

    Who are you protecting them from? And why?

    And as for “the question”, I clearly, openly, and unequivocally state that I do not believe that a fertilized egg is a human being.

    (And for the record, I do not believe that sex would vanish. Emmenagogues and abortifacients are plentiful and common; abortions are available to anyone with the knowledge. All criminalizing it does it penalize the poor and uneducated. Go look for the cautions associated with something as common as parsley. Do you really think you can eradicate all abortion without seriously constricting all women and the men who would help/take advantage of them?)

  24. says

    Fern Hill: By “productive” I meant, for the most part, just not getting yelled at or called too many names. I can deal with “fetus fetishist” though, I appreciate the humour.

    DeBeauxOs: Ok. But your daughter didn’t become a human because you held her in your arms, or because the umbilical cord was cut. There must have been some point, presumably before then, when she became a human being.

    Prole: No, I can’t imagine too many reasons, but that doesn’t mean I’m assuming the reasons are frivolous. Reasons aren’t relevant if the unborn is human, and most won’t be adequate if it is. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t claiming “women lack common sense” or something silly like that.

    Gigi: It’s my argumentative streak as well, I guess.

    The unborn doesn’t really require “protection” in the way you suggest (ie. from mythological harpies), but human life should be respected. In the same way we’d view it as wrong for a mother (or father) to kill their born child, if the unborn is human, it would also be wrong to intentionally kill the unborn.

    If human, the unborn deserves to be considered a person under the law like every other human being. Human rights violations occur when a subsection of the human population is denied personhood.

    Maybe “respect” is a better word, the same respect that we grant human life everywhere else in our society. Or protection in the sense that you and I enjoy protection under the law (ie. we are persons, so we have rights and freedoms).

    “In the eyes of the law… the slave is not a person.”
    – Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858

    “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.”
    – George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881

    “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.”
    – British Voting Rights case, 1909

    “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
    – German Supreme Court decision, 1936

    “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”
    – Canadian Supreme Court, Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case, 1997

    If the fertilized egg isn’t a human being, then when does the unborn become a human being? Granted, most won’t say conception, but not many people will say birth either. Where should the line be drawn? (/ have we gone too far?)

    (I agree that criminalizing abortion would involve a lot of practical complexity, though that can be considered in addition to moral questions. But I’ve never said that I think it should be criminalized… The best articulation of the pro-life goal that I’ve heard is to “make abortion unthinkable”.)

  25. says

    Ok, so like, isn’t this enough already? Comparing a fetus to a slave? a woman? Jews in Nazi Germany? Hullo? Anybody home? This is misogynistic crap here!!!

  26. Gigi says

    See I wasn’t thinking misogyny per se (that seemed to be covering EVERYONE – though I can see your point if you consider that that positions the woman who conceived as Hitler or John A MacDonald) – I was still back there wondering if the fetuses had been asking for the rights to vote or own property. (Maybe with their magic womb cell phones. Thx Mandos.)

    And then I wondered whether the definition of person under the law as having “rights and duties” could even be applied. What possible duties can a fetus have? And what recourse do we have should the fetus not live up to these obligations?

    If anything, this MORE CLEARLY illustrates the illogic as a fetus cannot possibly be punished without punishing the woman carrying it. It is simply a farcical concept!

    As for where along the path does it become “human”, I’m inclined to say FOR MYSELF – not for any mythologically monolithic entity known as the Pro-Choice movement – the moment it can live outside of my body. Which works well for that whole wacky “duties, obligations, and punishment” factor, I’m sure.

    And good luck with making abortion unthinkable. It’s pretty much the only thing I think when I imagine having a fetus inside me. What you might try instead is making information widely available like abortion after eight weeks typically requires a procedure to open the cervix as the default opening will no longer be sufficient for the fetus to pass through. And that holds whether the abortion is spontaneous or induced.

    You might also try explaining to the loopier ones on your side of this split that contraception is NOT a bad idea nor part of some bizarre “slippery slope” agenda. The more they keep shooting their mouths off, the more suspicious we are of the entire discussion. Try taking a page out of Stephen Harper’s book and get them to shut the hell up.

  27. BLANCHE DU BOIS says

    BLANCHE here, she who…y’know…Blaise, fuck off, will you? Go pick a nit somewhere else. You ask when a fetus becomes a human being. Well, may I quote something to you from the Bible the zygotists seem to want to ram down my throat…it says in there that God breathed the breath of life into Adam and “man became a living soul”. Obviously, Blaise old boy, until that first breath man was NOT a living soul.

    So that’s when the zygote-become-fetus-becomes a baby. When it draws the breath of life.

    Okay?

    BLANCHE would never dream of grabbing you and forcing you to have an abortion. BLANCHE and every feminist I know would never force abortion on any woman. So quit with the histrionics, okay?

    You don’t have a uterus. So shut the fuck up. When you grow a uterus and can get pregnant we might want to hear from you.

    If you want to be good and sure no pregnancy caused by your male organ gets aborted, wear a sheath, get a vasectomy, or keep your willie in your jockey shorts, used only to pee.

    This is none of your business. I’m sorry business has more than one syllable. Try to break it down into little bits, use your phonics biz niss. This is none of your biz niss.

    Fuck off.
    Bend over, way over, way way way over, now shove your head up your ass and roll off down the hill.

    BLANCHE doesn’t like you. BLANCHE is a Templar Knight. BLANCHE was one of the leaders of the Priure de Sion. BLANCHE has done a fair bit of smiting in her time. BLANCHE will gladly smite again.

    Consider yerself smitten ya git. Fuck off. Go play with your wienie in the bathtub and remember Gods’ warning to Onan..do not spill your seed upon the ground. That means, git, ya can jack off into a hanky, a serviette, a napkin, a towel but do not leave a gob on the ground for someone else to slip in, they might fall and do themselves an injury.

    I wish you gits would just set yourselves down with a pot of tea and READ THAT FUCKIN BOOK, Okay? You’ve been beating women over the head with it since the days Jerusalem was taken back from the Crusaders and you STILL haven’t read what it really says.

    Howard’ll git ya. (our father who art in heaven Howard be thy name). Just spend your time reading the book and remember the eleventh commandment: THOU SHALT MIND THINE OWN FUCKIN BIZNESS

  28. says

    It appears that Blaise has had his little fun and now his visiting hours are over.

    For all his smarmy faux civility, he is basically a zygote zealot wasting our time with his sophistry. He is rephrasing what we say in his own terms and ignoring the points that were made while playing his broken record of “the law has to decide when does the blob of cells become a human being”.

    Based on his postings, I’d say that Blaise seems oblivious to other human beings’s reality and rather obsessed with abstract issues so perhaps that makes him an ‘inhumane being’. Because I have the power to do so, I can mark his contributions as spam and he will no longer be able to post here. However, I can leave his last comment stand so as proof of his inability to read and understand what we are saying.

    Any objections? Or do some of the Birth Pang participants wish to toy with the Blaise troll a bit longer?

  29. BLANCHE DU BOIS says

    Hi, it’s BLANCHE again. She who is so…etc., y’know… I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but BLANCHE tends to get irate when a certain mentality starts to perform. If BLANCHE had any reason at all to suspect that entering into civilized dialogue with a particular mind-set would do any good, well, BLANCHE might even waste some time doing that. But there is a mindset which isn’t interested in dialogue. It’s a game. They don’t even necessarily believe the stuff which drools from their mouths, or slimes from their keyboards, it’s just a pass time, a game of “yabbut”, it’s the nittering and nattering and verbal gymnastics which entertain and amuse them. They could as easily argue and bicker the exact opposite. They take a stance only to chunter. Neener neener neener.

    Gorgeous Bones, you are a brick. Spam filter is a great way to smite them. Smite smote smit…. whatever it takes.

    There are trolls and there are trolls.