Saturday, 30 May 2009


As several bloggers and commenters have noted, at a glance one can assess HER state of mind by the amount of fetal pron SHE decorates HER posts with. And lately there's been a ton.

So, while I declined HER invitation to a show-down at the Fetus Fetishist Corral here, I was following the discussion.

When I read the following comment, it seemed clear that her last remaining neuron had exploded with a tiny shrieeeek of its own.

SHE is replying to a comment by JJ, who said: 'Most of us feel this is a private personal matter, about as "up for debate" as what kind of feminine hygiene protection we use.'
But JJ, the thing I'm advancing is not ultimately about abortion.

I'm advancing that all innocent human beings, including the unborn, deserve an unqualified right to life that trumps every other right.

It's not ultimately about abortion. I don't care if abortion is considered private or not.

I don't care that the decision to abort is the result of a grave personal circumstance.

It conflicts with what I am advancing, namely that fetuses are people, too. The fact that they are inside a woman's body doesn't give her a license to kill.

See, that's the debate, really.

If there was no debate-- and by that I mean no controversy-- about the status of the fetus, I would AGREE with you.

But feminists don't talk about the fetus.

That's why it is considered a non-debate.

I am talking about the fetus.

That's the debate.

*backing slowly away* Riiiiight.

I backed all the way over to JJ's to ask 'WTF?'

The always wise JJ replied:
fern hill – She’s talking about fetal rights :roll: In her somewhat convoluted way, I think what she’s saying is that she doesn’t care if women have abortions, as long as they don’t hurt the fetus :shock:

Eureka! I got it! By george, I got it!

SHE's totally OK with abortion as long as no fetuses are harmed.

So, like, then, I can be totally OK with capital punishment as long as no one is strung up, electrocuted, lethally injected, beheaded, or you know, killed.

Seriously. This is why I say again: fuck the debate.


deBeauxOs said...

What a load of epistem-illogical hoo-haw SHE blathers. Blatantly dishonest.

SHE's on record as supporting the Catholic Church position that IVF is unacceptable unless a woman carries her own fertilized ovum/zygote to term, that it cannot be implanted in the uterus of a surrogate and gestated through a pregnancy consented and engineered for that purpose.

Blob Blogging Wingnut is a Lying Liar. What a surprise.

the regina mom said...

Well, now, wait a hold-it!

I think Fetanne is suggesting that it's ok to terminate a pregnancy when the gestational age determines it is still a zygote.

Oh my Goodness! She's come a long way! ;)

deBeauxOs said...

Nope, that is definitely not what she's saying. SHE believes that it's bay-beez from the moment of fertilization, which is the Catholic Church position.

SoWrongOrNuts however believes in the patriarchal imperative which identifies creation from the ejaculatory arc forthwith, thus his revulsion at condoms or any other barrier form of birth control. Mr 'My Own Private Taliban' shrieeeks at the thought of those evul spermatoriums.

Anonymous said...

Considering that She who must be named in all caps seems to be the loudest, most obnoxious voice in the nation with a particular bent to the sick side.

Ignoring her, not giving her an audience -- in effect -- aborting her from the conversation, might be the best approach to her kitchen table philosophy?

Paladiea said...

"I'm advancing that all innocent human beings, including the unborn, have an unqualified right to life that trumps every other right."

WOOO! Bring on the mandatory organ harvesting! Little girls with leukemia are waiting for marrow!

And what happenens when the woman's right to life conflicts with the "unborn"?

Post a Comment