Wow, what a mess… spam all over the place!!
Must do MASSIVE house cleaning, then figure out how to work WordPress again… everything’s different now.
I guess that’s just what happens when you don’t visit your blog for a year (on medical advice, ha).
Well let’s see if this thing flies or dies…
POST!
Take that, Big Pharma.
******************************
And? So? What up?? Also.
Propaganda from the “Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform” — the fetus-obsessed dingbats who cruise Calgary and beyond in their notorious Fetusmobiles — is typically a deranged orgy of fetus porn and pure steaming bullshit. But sometimes it’s so unintentionally hilarious that it’s worthy of being published in the Onion.
Following this week’s news of the death-by-fetus-fetishizing of Savita Halappanavar, a CCBR video is making the rounds as antichoicers feverishly try to defend the indefensible. The video talks about how doctors can avoid doing their jobs abortions even when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger (because really, like, who cares…?). A few seconds into it, I burst out laughing and took a quick screencap:
Yes, it’s the CCBR’s unhinged Stephanie Gray, an Expert in the Field of Fetus Fetishizing, and — HELLO!! A stethoscope and lab coat hanging pointedly from a doorknob?? What’s up with THAT?
Presumably Dr. Demento there, with her BA in PoliSci, wants to come across as possessing a credibility she hasn’t even come close to dreaming of earning, and how better to do it than casually hang a lab coat somewhere, as if she’s just taken it off after a long day of Doctorizing? I’m surprised she didn’t wear scrubs, since they can be picked up at any thrift store for a buck or 2.
What next from these bullshitting bullshitters? Try to pass off The Fetusmobile©®™
as an ambulance?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
UPDATED with bonus re-tweetable irony!
From my friend Mike on Twitter:
(Subtitle: “Goofy Antichoice Analogies”)
When it comes to their Magnificent Obsession, antichoicers love them some delusional, twisted and tortured analogies. In that spirit they’ve compared a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions to everything from slavery to the Holocaust to a broken TV set to a parrot in a cage (no, really).
Our deranged friend Stephen “M312” Woodworth, still trying to justify the Parliamentary time and money wasted on his little fapfest, tries again with yet another goofy analogy — something to do with planes and hot air balloons. This *motivated* fern hill to complete a project that’s been in the works for awhile: the greatest hits from the Lame Abortion Analogy Hall of Fame.
I’ve got one more, presented to me like a intricately gift-wrapped turd a couple of weeks ago in the comments section of an article at Macleans. I give you “The Polaroid Picture of The Deer That Ran Away” analogy:
Umm err yeah okay:
Just thought I’d put that one out there and, umm, see what develops.
It’s always amusing to watch someone writhing in the throes of a bogus Indignance High over something they’re widely known not to give a rat’s ass about. For the Authoritarian Right, sex-selective abortion — the rare and weird practice of aborting female fetuses because daughters are seen as undesirable — is one such issue. While the more extreme Right routinely spirals into psychotic episodes over any kind of abortion, their claim to be concerned about this particular kind because it discriminates against females somehow doesn’t ring true. After all, this is the same crowd that would force a now-20-year-old ex-fetus to carry a fetus of her own to term.
As I said in my “Bonus Track” back here, I find the “sex selective abortion” meme a little dubious at best. Certainly it goes on, and where it does go on, no doubt it’s a foul practice. But I question whether it’s rampant enough in Canada to warrant the pandemic of pearl clutching it’s provoked in recent years.
It’s an issue that comes and goes. But now, in the wake of Motion 312 and its companion Motion 408 — to “condemn sex selective abortion” — it’s back in all its hyperventilating, gasping glory. And like clockwork, the relentless Blame Game has kicked off:
Fascist feminists! And predictably, the persistent question:
Not that any feminist has ever claimed to support sex selective abortion, and one could only see it that way by wearing “With Us Or Against Us” blinders. As for “not a single feminist” ever addressing the issue? Puh-leeeeease! But when did these people ever let reality get in the way of a good outragegasm?
What’s dumbly perceived as “support” is simply consistency for those who agree with the current laissez-faire status of abortion in Canada. I don’t actively “support” sex selection as a reason for an abortion; actually I think it’s a hideous reason. But that’s my opinion and it’s irrelevant in the context of anyone else. For good or ill, the reasons for an abortion are the business of the woman having it and nobody else: the decision is hers and hers alone to make. I will always support whatever decision a woman makes: whether I “approve of” her reasons for making it is a non-issue.
And if those “fascist feminists” aren’t keeping up with the speed, volume and spittle-flecked fury of right-wing commentary on sex selective abortion, maybe it’s because they’re busy working to create the conditions that would render it non-existent: a world where women and girls are valued as much as anyone else. And we could sure use some help!
As everyone knows by now, that sleazy piece of legislative feculence known as “Motion 312” is gone, gone, like the snows of yesteryear. Or in the contemporary vernacular,
M312 FAIL!
Indeed.
When the deal finally went down on Wednesday afternoon, my final estimate on votes for and agin was just about right.
I predicted about 1/2 the CPC would vote “Yes”, simply because any more would make Harpie, who voted “No”, look bad: the actual vote was 52%. All in all, the slimy monster was defeated by more than 2 -1: a decisive defeat, if not the humiliating, crushing blow of my sadistic, seed-stealing, baby-killing, pants-dropping, man-hating feminazi dreams. But still, gone.
Gone but not *quite* forgotten, if Twitter’s “#M312” timeline is any indication.
But so what? The Men Who Stare At Zygotes motion built a lot of momentum, thanks to Woodworth’s moving the vote forward from the original date in June. Rare is the anti-abortion motion that generates this kind of buzz, and it’s understandable that the fetus fetishists would be desperate to keep it going.
They even had a Companion Motion waiting in the hopper should M312 fail, and predictably and pathetically, tabled it immediately:
MPs may have voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to shut down discussion on Canada’s abortion laws, but another Conservative backbench MP has found a new way to keep the debate alive.
Langley, B.C. MP Mark Warawa introduced a motion Thursday calling on the House of Commons to condemn discrimination against females via sex-selective pregnancy termination.
(“Shut down discussion” — who writes this rotten sludge?)
Anyway, the newest piece of antichoice offal being flogged, Motion 408, is a total non-starter and barely worthy of attention. It calls for the House to do no more than “condemn” a specific and rare practice, not make changes to Criminal Code definitions that would result in criminalizing abortion. I almost feel embarrassed for its proponents, so screamingly obvious is the real purpose of Motion 408: keep the M312 momentum going.
My uterus and I say “Thanks for stopping by, but we’re not buying what you’re selling”.
Some people are concerned, as they should be about any state initiative that has anything to do with reproductive rights, but a watchful eye is all that’s needed here. If Motion 408 is ignored, it will come and go without any affect on womens’ rights, and the Motion 312 hype, already fading, will disintegrate. Continuing to engage antichoicers over this new motion is exactly what they want. Until Motion 408 evolves into an existential threat, I say ignore it. I’d rather watch the fetus fetishists melt down into frustrated dung-puddles as all the M312 buzz melts away with them.
(The Avenging Uterus! from here)
BONUS TRACK: A Word About “Sex-Selective Abortion”
It’s the Outrage-du-Jour, or maybe just another way to try and slip one past the prochoice goalie; either way, I’m not convinced the practice is widespread enough in Canada to warrant the shrieking that goes on over it. The notion that it could result in a Canada top-heavy with males is absurd, but the idea of social engineering by the government as a legitimate means of avoiding this unlikely situation is loathesome in the extreme.
I will say that sex selection wouldn’t be my reason for having an abortion, but that’s my personal opinion and irrelevant in the context of anyone’s abortion but my own. For good or ill, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is the woman’s to make, and hers alone: not mine, yours or the state’s.
Did we call it or did we call it?
Less than 2 weeks before the final vote on the sleazy, suspect Motion 312, a pleading dispatch from MP Stephen Woodworth to those voting on it confirms its true intentions:
September 14, 2012
Dear Colleague:
Re: Motion 312
1. I am enclosing a copy of Subsection 223(1), the law which is the sole focus of Motion 312. You will see that Subsection 223(1) is a 400 year old law which decrees the dehumanization and exclusion of an entire class of people we know to be human beings, namely, children before the moment of complete birth.
This is a direct assault upon the principle of universal human rights, which insists that every human being has an inherent worth and dignity which the state must recognize rather than merely a value assigned by others based on the utility or inconvenience of that human being.
2. I am also enclosing an extract from the judgment of Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bertha Wilson in her 1988 Morgentaler decision throwing out Canada’s abortion law. Justice Wilson was a woman of impeccable feminist credentials.
You will see from this extract that Justice Wilson left open the question of protecting the rights of children before birth for resolution by Parliament. Subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decisions have also left open this question for Parliament to resolve. Far from “re-opening” this issue, Motion 312 proposes the consensus-building dialogue which is the only path to finally closing it. This is in fact what Justice Wilson suggested.
You will also see that Justice Wilson concluded, like me, that the existing recognition only at complete birth is wrong, suggesting that it ought to be at some point in the second trimester of the child’s development. She did not regard this to be inconsistent with her decision on abortion.
3. Finally, I am enclosing a copy of Motion 312 itself. Please note that Motion 312 proposes no legislation (on abortion or anything else) and insists that the Committee also refrain from doing so. The Committee will merely study the evidence and report all available options.
Please also note that Motion 312 directs the Committee to respect all Supreme Court of Canada decisions. All existing women‟s rights are protected by this provision!
Laws like Subsection 223(1), which decree the dehumanization and exclusion of an entire class of people, deny the principle of universal human rights. That principle, which asserts that every human being possesses equal and inherent worth and dignity is the bedrock upon which all of other our laws rest.
No 400 year old law should be frozen in time, forever immune from democratic review and forever immune from advances in understanding.
Please support the mere study proposed by Motion 312.
Sincerely,
Stephen Woodworth
Member of Parliament
Kitchener Centre
It’s ironic that even at this point, Woodworth still twists in the wind between truth and lies meant to comfort those who support the right to reproductive autonomy. “All existing womens’ rights are protected”: well, of course. There is no existing, codified-in-law right to the specific medical procedure abortion, only the right to privacy and security of person which in 1988 was deemed to include this doctor-patient decision.
Of course, much is made of the fact that Justice Bertha Wilson was a woman of impeccable feminist cred: she was. But her decision in 1988 assumed there would always be a law in some form or other, because there always had been. In 1988 not even a woman of Justice Wilson’s brilliance could have imagined that Canada would embark on an incredibly successful 24-year experiment in leaving this medical decision to doctors and patients, and the state’s interference proven to be utterly useless.
Being proven right in a contentious dispute is usually occasion for gladness, but this is one time that it would be a far better thing to be proven wrong. I take no pleasure in the fact that prochoice suspicions about Motion 312 are now unequivocally proven right: that the motion is indeed the first legislative step towards regressive and unnecessary abortion restrictions and the establishment of pregnant women as an underclass with less rights than non-pregnant women.
If only Justice Wilson were still around to give us her current opinion on the matter. Right now she must surely be rolling in her grave.
I can hardly stand another Motion 312 post, and you probably feel the same way. But 17 days away from the final vote and certain demise of the motion, and the subsequent MASS persecutiongasm, there will be more to say on this sordid subject, so bear with me.
One of the antichoice initiatives launched in support of Motion 312 is something called “Letters 4 Life”, which for the last few months has been gamely trying to get 100,000 letters sent to Parliament by the day of the vote. 100,000 is a nice round number, and presumably L4L means to give the impression that 100,000 Canadians are so strongly opposed to abortion rights that they’ve been driven to penning shrieking spittle-flecked screeds to Harper et al. A few days ago they had 65,000 letters sent – not too bad, assuming they were from 65,000 individuals. But some people just can’t resist snarking off:
That was obviously the incentive they needed because a couple of days later the number of letters went PARABOLIC:
But why not? Anything’s possible, with the Power of Prayer.
No, I wasn’t buying that either, so I decided to find out if there might be something other than Prayer Power behind the MASSIVE spike in letter-writing.
My first stop was the L4L site’s “letter tracker”. This is where letter-writing fetus fetishists record how many letters they sent, and apparently they’re being encouraged to send hundreds…
…and proving themselves more than up to the task. To wit, on L4L’s Facebook page there’s a post from someone who thinks 30 letters from one individual isn’t very many:
…so she grabs the crack pipe and suddenly she’s banging them out at top speed:
Yay Nancy, Freeper Extraordinaire! I wonder how many others are cranking out letters at this rate? I had been under the impression that “100,000” meant 100,000 individuals sending one(1) letter, but it could just as easily be 200 wired-up Nancies, each churning out a frenzied 5 or 600 letters.
The letter tracker’s question “Do you live in Canada” was also intriguing and more than a little sinister. I fired up the Googles for some investigative blogging and instantly hit paydirt in the form of an obscure little American website, the Teenage Life Club, flogging their own ‘Stand for Life’ antichoice campaign that advises sending messages to the White House… and Congress… and… the Canadian Government??:
Really, eh? If some little high school club is doing this, presumably they’re not the only ones: they had to get the idea from somewhere. I checked in on Nurse Stanek’s Sweet & Sour Fetus Cafe & Quik-Lube, and sure enough she has an article about the “Stand Up For Life” campaign, with a link to the site. “Letters 4 Life” is mentioned at Stanek’s without a direct link, but at least some of her substantial and furiously zealous traffic would find its way there from the Teenage Life Club’s site. I wonder how many other US sites are telling their readers to write letters to the Canadian government?
I sincerely doubt that a small number of people — some of whom aren’t even eligible to vote here — obsessively sending thousands of form letters to Parliament will tell our elected officials anything other than who CSIS should be keeping an eye on.
BONUS TRACK:
Nancy x10?
It’s common knowledge that extremist antichoicers — the kind that favour egg-person laws — are cataclysmiscally clueless and brutally slow on the uptake. This grim reality is more than conventional wisdom: it’s almost a peer-reviewed science, re-proven week in and week out. This week’s been no different from any other, so once more for the road!
Ultimate Goal of Motion M312
This was The Week That The Worm Turned like never before, as fetus fetishists who’ve been relentlessly flogging the doomed Motion 312 (aka “Woodworth’s Wank”, aka the “Men Who Stare At Zygotes” Motion) got whacked upside the head with a king-size cluebat, and finally realized something the rest of us have known for months: Motion 312 is DOA.
What’s long been screamingly obvious to the rest of us clearly shocked fetus fetishists who were slobbering giddily over the vague possibility that, with a good deal of sophistry, Motion 312 would clear the way to fetal “personhood”. And never mind that there are much easier ways to resolve this semantic issue without involving *The Fetus©®™ or threatening womens’ autonomy. Antichoicers have proven time and again that their most profound skill is the art of ignoring solutions that don’t give us all a One-Way Ticket to the Republic of Gilead.
But they blew it, like they always do. While “personhood” for fertilized eggs is a popular item in delusional Christofascist circles, to most Canadians — 94% of us, to be exact — the notion is so repugnant that any legal manoeuvreing in that direction has to be done in secrecy and pulled over on the General Public while they’re busy having non-procreative sex or getting illegitimately raped. And just try getting a fetus fetishist gripped in the throes of a twitching, trembling, eye-popping, Jesus-driven fetus fetishizing frenzy to keep quiet about something like Motion 312. Right from the start they were jabbering like gerbils on crack, contradicting Woodworth, each other and even themselves. The Motion’s true intention might as well have been broadcast in a flashy 30-second spot during the Superbowl: PERSONHOOD! PERSONHOOD! PERSONHOOD!
Most motions come and go without notice, but when the General Public inevitably got wind of Motion 312 it was properly appalled; if you doubt it, scan the comments at any online article on the topic. The coup de grâce was served up last month when the CMA declared their opposition to the Motion. This came as no surprise to Prochoicers who are well aware of the CMA’s long and proud support for Freedom of Choice, but the unconditional lab-coated bitch slap was a rude shock to the fetus fetishists. Suddenly it looked like their dreams of installing a tiny little police officer in every womb were about to be dashed upon the rocks of reason and privacy rights.
I can just imagine the sighs of relief from politicians of all stripes when Motion 312 is finally aborted. I can also imagine the sly, stupid smirks on antichoice faces dissolving into shock and horror when they realize that the absolutist position promoted by Motion 312 was the worst possible route to take, and that in their “last stand” they’re staring down the barrel of a “CRUSHING BLOW” to their cause. Not that this means we let up on defending our rights even an inch …
*With thanks to deBeauxOs 😉
In the vicious political circus south of the border, where they’re apparently having one of those “Presidential Elections” later this year, evidence of the retrograde brain damage afflicting the Republican Party continues to mount relentlessly. It’s been showcased all this week in the Republican National Convention, and last night it spiraled into madness.
Clint Eastwood showed up — more or less — and made the teabaggers’ day with an odd, sometimes incoherent routine that had him debating an empty chair and getting his ass kicked by it. It was a strange and terrifying schtick, particularly for those of us at seniorhood’s doorstep. And apparently not great PR, because after it painfully concluded actor Chris Rock was prompted to tweet:
And no wonder:
WHY, CLINT? WHY??
In other RNC News Of The Weird, Karl Rove apparently wants to whack Todd Akin:
We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!
Only a high-profile Republican windbag could get away with openly musing about assassinating someone. But why not? Akin might well be responsible for the GOP losing its chance to gain control of the Senate with his own bizarre comments about “Legitimate Rape“. Not that he expressed an opinion most Republicans don’t share: his mistake was going public with it and getting caught, and then refusing to step down.
Meanwhile in Akinworld, the recalcitrant senatorial candidate begs for donations on Twitter, cursing the GOP’s upper echelons as the “liberal elite”.
I’d be watching my back if I were him.
It’s all over now, leaving nothing in its wake but a riot of “MITT!” signs, a few random dried-out piles of elephant poop and some strange, strange memories. But as weird as the RNC was, stranger still is the fact that after electing a candidate the base despises, but who happens to be the only thing they can come up with that stands a chance in a general election, it still hasn’t occurred to the GOP that maybe what they really need a new base.
********************************************************************************
UPDATE: And right on schedule, the inevitable half-hearted apology. From Rove, anyway. Clint Eastwood has yet to apologize for his abysmally weird performance, unless he apologized to an empty chair.
********************************************************************************
UPDATER: With typical deftness, balb points out that Eastwood’s speech may in fact have been Performance Art. It makes sense when you think about it: the Empty Chair represents the Obama that only conservatives of the teabagging persuasion can see — the America-hater, the Socialist, the Kenyan Usurper, the Bloodthirsty Babykiller, the Far-Left Extremist and Presider Over Death Panels.
There must be some reason that the Fascist religious crackpots at FetusFetishOnline are flogging this collection of abortion polls as a “Prolife Polling Resource”, but I’ll be damned if I know what it is. Painstakingly assembled by the Evangelical Fellowship and datamined from years of polls, it’s generally good news for prochoicers. Good old news, since it only confirms what we already know: that Canada is a vehemently prochoice country. It can’t be a relief to fetus fetishists to know that in this great country of ours the wearing of animal fur is considered more morally unacceptable than abortion.
Not that there isn’t the occasional ripe-sounding data to be cherrypicked, like the one indicating that about half the country would favour gestational limits on abortion. 
Far be it from me to rain on their parade — oh, shit on that, who am I kidding? I take great pleasure in noting that while this gestational limit thing might sound good for antichoicers at first blush, unpack it a little and what it really shows is support for abortion rights, just not as framed in the question. Any respondent who answered “No” to “Should women be able to have abortions any time during pregnancy?” would go in the “favours gestational limits” column. And — oh no, somebody stop me, I’m about to take the Mighty Pinprick of Truth to a few more of their party balloons — with so many fetus fetishists preferring the brain-damaged “All Or Nothing, Egg Personhood, Stop Embryo Oppression” approach, the idea that half of Canadians would accept gestational limits under 9 months must be cold comfort.
Then there’s the data we’ve already seen in poll after poll, but which I’m only too happy to see again: like the clear plurality of Canadians that think abortion is “morally acceptable” and do NOT want the so-called “abortion debate” re-opened, or don’t give a shit either way. Can you say “MASSIVE ProChoice Majority”?
Why Lifesite would choose to publish this less-than-encouraging data at the height of the battle of words & wits over Motion 312 is a mystery. But then again, why not: it’s in line with the haphazard and utterly clueless way the rest of the M312 campaign has been run, a confused and riotous crusade of Twitterspam, fetusmobiles, inconsistencies, transparent lies and general dumbness. For an initiative thought by some to be the last kick at the anti-abortion can for a long, long time, the ineptitude of its handling has been breathtaking to behold.
And fun to watch. Did I mention fun to watch?
(h/t fern hill on Twitter)
At the center of the shrieking maelstrom of madness known as “the Motion 312 Masturdebate” (because it’s really about one side not knowing when to quit) is the now-infamous Criminal Code Subsection 223(1), which among other things, defines when a “child” becomes a “human being”:
The use of the phrase “human being” is unfortunate because it has two distinct meanings, one legal, as in Subsection 223(1), and one biological. One correct, and one incorrect (in this context) and just waiting to be exploited. I can’t ask the Legal Eagles who crafted the statute, but I’m as certain as I’ll ever be about anything that what they meant by “human being” in the context of the Criminal Code was “legal person”, not “member of the species Homo Sapiens”. As old as Subsection 223(1) might be, it’s not so old that the legal minds of the time didn’t understand the biological reality that humans give birth to humans, not dogs or cats or hammerhead sharks.
But imagine Stephen Woodworth’s frenzied joy when he realized that the meaning of “human being” in 223(1), taken the wrong way, could be misrepresented as a Bad Law driven by Bad Science. Bad Law that needed to be investigated by a Parliamentary Committee. Bad Law that would eventually have to be changed to expand the legal meaning of “human being” to include even the lowly fertilized egg.
And so began the sordid tale of Motion 312, built on a disingenuous and self-serving misinterpretation of legal jargon, with its full intention the ushering in of the Beginning of the End of Abortion Rights in Canada.
Supporters of Motion 312, and Woodworth himself, bend over backwards with assurances that it’s nothing of the kind, but I know better. Not just because fetus fetishists let the cat out of the bag ages ago, and not just because they use Twitter to barf out scads of abortion-related tweets all over the Motion 312 timeline, and not just because they hashtag those tweets with “#FetalRights”, and not even just because Woodworth is committed to pushing anti-abortion legislation. All that stuff is meaningful, but the slam-dunk is a lot simpler.
If the only problem is a few words in Subsection 223(1), surely there’s an easier fix than launching Parliamentary investigations and expanding the legal meaning of “human being” to include zygotes, setting womens’ rights back about 50 years in the process. If the only problem is the phrase “human being”… then why not just change it? Amend the statute to say “person” or “legal person” instead of “human being”? Seems reasonable.
Reasonable to anyone whose “To Do” list doesn’t prominently feature the abolishment of reproductive rights.
Amirite?
As mentioned in my elegant little Public Service Announcement, though I haven’t
been around blogs much lately (including this one), I’ve been slogging around in my hip waders on Twitter’s Motion 312 timeline, known in the Twitterverse as “#M312“. (Hip waders? you ask… Yes, the bullshit’s that high.)
As we begin the feverish countdown to the Motion 312 debate and the vote that will put the whole ridiculous farce to sleep for good (September 18 & 19 respectively), Twitter has been an interesting read. Motion 312 was conceived on Twitter with MP Stephen Woodworth’s insipid ejerkulations about a “respectful debate on when life begins”, so it’s not surprising to find much of the battle over it being waged there. With “tweets” limited to 140 characters, it’s also the medium of a jabbering fetus fetishist’s dreams: a venue ideally suited to spitting out rapidfire gobs of propaganda at breakneck pace. Even sweeter, anyone who asks a question or makes a dissenting point can simply be “blocked”, the Twitter version of “disappeared”.
And so it’s gone with the antichoice Twitter campaign in support of the nefarious Motion 312: long on lies but extremely short on feedback when lies are called out. No surprise there since lying is like an uncontrollable, violent verbal tic with these people. It’s how they roll in any venue: Twitter just makes it easier. Every day #M312 is inundated with the same boring talking points, the same lame videos, the same spamload of gawdawful embarrassing pleas imploring MPs to vote “YES! Because I love Motion 312!”. But after awhile some disturbing inconsistencies were noticed…
Antichoicers in general and Woodworth in particular have always gone to great pains to emphasize that Motion 312 was NOT about abortion, or personhood, or so-called “fetal rights”. Yet the fetushists’ tweets in M312 are routinely tagged “fetal rights” and their content is often abortion-related:
…both of these being things they continually insist are unrelated to M312. Questions about this incongruity are ignored, questioners blocked.
Remember now, these are the people who were shrieking and panting for a “debate”.
Despite their bellowing (“We want the debate!“), it’s clear they want anything but a debate, or at least, a “debate” with only one side. I came up with a Twitter hashtag for it — #Masturdebate — but humour aside, it seemed to me that we were missing something. The flip side of never blaming on Malice what can be explained by Stupidity, you know? All these little inconsistencies might be part of an overall Plan…
…if “debate” isn’t what they want at all, and never has been. What they really want is a venue, an opportunity to mainstream their goofy language about “fetal rights”, by getting prochoicers to engage with them. We are, after all, the mainstream. Remember the Team Fetus Rolling Roadshow earlier this summer? How much media attention did they get before pro-choicers started pushing back with counter-protests? I rest my case.
Look, antichoicers have always had trouble getting any mainstream traction, or even attention, especially here in sane, pro-choice Canada, where they’re largely ignored and considered nutbars and flaming religious fascists. To the broader Canadian public, a fetus is a lower life form than a pregnant woman and abortion is a private reality best kept between patient and doctor.
And that’s the way we’d like to keep it.
There’s little chance of “fetal rights” becoming an expression that will get you much other than a look of fear and loathing or at least puzzlement and a quick end to the conversation, before Motion 312 bites the dust. But it’s something to keep in mind for the next time they screech for a “debate”: that what they’re really doing is trying to fast-track their language into popular lexicon.
Change the language, change the attitude.
It’s pretty slick: in the states antichoicers buy a lot of this kind of advice from expensive, high-pressure marketing consultants. I was in the business and I recognize certain strategies when i see them.
Apparently the newest nugget of antichoice wingnut wisdom is that prochoice bloggers are — wait for it — “gutless cowards” because some of us use pseudonyms.
Before you start yelling “Amanda Marcotte! Jessica Valenti! Jill Filipovic!” or point out that plenty of antichoice bloggers do the same, or protest that there’s a king-hell shitload of good reasons for not using your real name online that have nothing to do with the sick obsessiveness and twitchy trigger fingers of the antichoice lunatic fringe, let’s ask ourselves what this woebegone little whine might really be about. Because it can’t really be about anonymity/pseudonyms, since these practices cut across both sides of the abortion rights blogosphere.
From where I sit it looks more like one or two particular pseudonymous prochoice bloggers somehow annoyed some antichoice bloggers who “blog naked” so to speak. And this was the best they could do: a peevish gripe about prochoice bloggers blogging “anonymously”.
But why not? Baiting a hook and reeling in some predictably goofy comments about “gutlessness” and “hiding behind pseudonyms” to “spew libelous smears”… that kind of post puts a little Fun into a boring mid-week afternoon. And after all, no matter what the bible-banging doomer goons tell you, Fun is what it’s all about.
Unfortunately, over at BIG BLUE WAVE (copy-paste for obvious reasons: http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2012/07/prolifeprowoman-asks-why-are-so-many.html), SUZANNE spiraled into paroxysms of stupid rage and beclowned herself with this brainless commentary:
Oh, SUZANNE. “Libel”? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It only got worse in the comments, when a few people with their heads screwed on explained that there are a lot of good reasons for blogging pseudonymously. When I saw real-world stories of threats, harassment and stalking brushed off as “cowardly” and “BOGUS”, along with accusations of “Libelous Smears”, I could stand it no longer. I left a comment, and that was where the Pot and Kettle didn’t just meet but careened into each other at top speed and burst into flames in an epic head-on collision. My comment, not surprisingly, was
…not published.
And just because I had the nerve to ask for examples of the “Libelous Smears” and the steel-belted, gold-plated brass BALLS to suggest that said smears might exist only in SUZANNE’s frenzied imagination. Oh well…
Anyone who makes false accusations of “gutlessness” and especially “libel” should be prepared to back them up. Making an accusation and then deleting comments that call you on it takes gutlessness to a whole new level.
But so what? Her house, her rules. She’s a Propagandist and that’s how Propaganda is done. But let the record stand that SUZANNE’s brainless blather about “Libelous Smears” is manufactured from whole rotten maggot-infested cloth, with nothing to back it up but the summer breeze.
And after all, they all do it: longtime readers might recall when false accusations were made against The General at Stanek’s Psych Ward & Fetus Fetishizing Cafe, and when he called her on it in her comments section, she responded by deleting his comment. These people are nothing if not predictable.
Tell your city councillors to update their web security.
You’re welcome.
(h/t – chet on twitter)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
unrepentant old hippie 
Recent Comments