Thursday, October 25, 2007

Bloody Devil #17

Bloody Devil AwardThe Bloody Devil Award is for people who fisk objects of public derision but who also pepper the post with gratuitous but intensely satisfying insults.*

Written by Woman of Experience, this is probably the best and most sensible post on abortion that I have read.

Talking of which, Unity rips Nadine Dorries a new arsehole, for which I am delighted to award him the seventeenth Bloody Devil Award.
I’ve taken on and roundly picked apart the banal, uneducated and irrational maunderings of Nadine ‘Mad Nad’ Dorries on the subject of abortion on a couple of previous occasions, so I expect it will come as no great surprise to find that with the Commons’ Science and Technology Committee hearing evidence on medical developments relating to foetal development since the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 and Dorries – for some inexplicable reason – safely ensconced on said committee and flapping her gums for all she’s worth, Dorries is about to get both barrels yet again.

In fact, reading her ‘commentaries’ on the proceedings of the Committee I think I can safely say that rarely, if ever, have encountered such a continuous stream of crude, vapid, abject, disingenuous, ill-conceived and intellectually dishonest bullshit as that emanating from the keyboard of Mad Nad over the last week. In fact I might even be inclined to accuse of her lying were it not quite so obvious that she is completely and utterly deluded in her opinions and arguments and deserving, therefore, of being permitted the small shreds of largesse (and, perhaps, pity) that come with encountering an individual so completely in the grip of self-deception as to be completely incapable of recognising a cogent and rational argument, even if one were to engrave such an argument into a baseball bat and use the bat to emboss it onto her forehead.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm mistaken: Unity rips her two new arseholes.

Might you, she needs three arseholes 'cos she's that full of shit.

UPDATE: lest anyone should be interested in my own personal opinion on abortion, it is basically the same as Unity's as laid out in his post.
So far as such evidence is concerned, that I find most compelling is the clear evidence that the basic capacity for consciousness, sentience and self-awareness does not begin to function at even a rudimentary level until 26-28 weeks gestation.

My view of what I value as most human is bound up in the capacity for consciousness and sentience. Cogito Ergo Sum. And as such when it comes to minimising harm in a situation where some degree of harm is necessary then if one is to terminate the development of a foetus then at least do so before the capacity for conscious thought and sentience begins to develop.

I am, therefore, comfortable with the current 24 week upper limit, but for preference wish to see access to abortion before that point expedited - if a woman is to have an abortion, make it as early as possible, where the procedure itself is at its simplest, safest and least physically [and psychologically] traumatic.

That's the kernel of the argument as far as I am concerned.


* Note the all new Bloody Devil Award logo, a transparent PNG-24 file which will sit, without a square white background, on any colour.

49 comments:

Henry North London said...

That quote is priceless...

May I use it the engrave one?

I need it for www.biologicalfeatures.blogspot.com

Could you ask permission for me or point me to whom I need to ask?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Henry,

I suggest that you wander over to Unity's post and ask him in the comments.

Although, to be fair, it is a confection that I have seen used before...

DK

Henry North London said...

I have indeed wandered over but am in pregnant anticipation for the outcome

If you'll pardon the pun

Newmania said...

Yeh yeah , not bad for an amateur but Nadine is right. The BMA are pro death and they have misrepresented the positon on viability( not that I think viability is the issue anyway)

Those women who think they should have the right to pursue teenagers down the street with baseball bats should not have had someone stick his unprotected cock in themn in the first place . Now how hard is that to remember


After me

Cock in cunt = baby.


The only good reason for mudering the unborn of such women I can think of is the health of the gene pool. Yeeeesh

Devil's Kitchen said...

Thank you, Newmania; I shall bear that in mind the next time that my contraception fails and I have to take that decision.

Obviously, I should either abstain from sex or, I guess, not date so many skanks.

Now go and read Ms Robinson's post and try not to be so fucking prejudiced and simplistic, OK.

DK

Henry North London said...

I think that most of these women know that cock in cunt= baby but what is also means is


Cock in cunt= baby (baby and single mother means money, housing,and security courtesy of the government rather than the owner of the cock)

Your comment about the gene pool is so correct, it sometimes leads me to think Im somewhat prejudiced about eugenics on that particular front....

Having delivered babies from young women younger than myself at the time(sometimes 7 years younger) feeling rather crossplussed with confusion at how they are having their second at 23 when I was not even thinking about them at that age thinking them to be an unwanted burden before a reasonable age of at least 30 odd when I wanted to settle down I could not agree more with newwmania.

The BMA are so corrupt you can virtually smell it in the Edwardian Lutyens designed dining room. It wafts out to the square in front.

Sometimes I really do wonder why he detonated the bomb there of all places.

Henry North London said...

Having got that off my chest I do not like being this way but I see people and talk to them in four syllables and they go eh? what? and it distresses me... Perhaps I need to take the leader quiz again....

Its been a rather heavy 24 hours...maybe I need to just chill...

Newmania said...

Oh dear me , it was inconvenient ..boo fucking hoo, it came at a bad time .. poor poor thing , she couldn`t afford to send the brat to Prep school..oh well that clinches it .Tell you what lets flush the little fucker doen the plug hole and say no more about it....
This is cow variety B. Not the usual child adult who thinks the consequences of their action s should be born by their unborn children but that sinister sort who only have three notes

DOH RAY ME ..ME ME ME ME( ...um can we move onhere ..) ME ME ME ME(...wasn`t there a 'so') ME ME ME. and so on.

You should see a 12 week scan. Little legs , a heart and they move , they want to live. At six months they can beat you at scrabble .I say two months .Two months to decide if you want it or not .
After that its not your decision . Tell you waht DK if you think at six months it is insufficiently aware , capable of pain and so on how about you and I go and hunt down the metally retarded some night just to clean the closet so to speak.

There is more to this than a shallow modern choice ,it is a soul. Small, dependent and weak maybe but a soul nonetheless and that goes for others who do not in this bright new dawn cut the adequacy mustard.

There is far too much bagging up and flushing away in this morally depraved world and it just a good job I `m here to put a few sinners straight.

Heed my fucking words

Newmania said...

..ahem ..I may have over egged the pudding a tad there .....

Little Black Sambo said...

DK when you get on to this subject you really seem crazed. And did you see Dr Death on Newsnight? Quite alarming.

invincibly ignorant said...

Having delivered babies from young women younger than myself at the time(sometimes 7 years younger) feeling rather crossplussed with confusion...''

Maybe that's because you are an immature twat who needs to grow up

And as for this 'women of experience' this is particularly unbelievable..

''And then that January in the middle of not knowing what the hell was going on, we made love. Who the hell knows why since we were so messed up?''

Translated as 'I got pissed, fancied a shag therefore a baby had to die'

Henry North London said...

At the time I was 23 and a medical student. The babies I delivered are now probably having sex themselves...

As for your user name Invincibly ignorant...

You deserve it. In fact I would be proud to say that it would be ( as I have permission now) that you are completely and utterly deluded in your opinions and arguments and deserving, therefore, of being permitted the small shreds of largesse (and, perhaps, pity) that come with encountering an individual so completely in the grip of self-deception as to be completely incapable of recognising a cogent and rational argument, even if one were to engrave such an argument into a baseball bat and use the bat to emboss it onto your forehead.

Go flame somewhere else ( my BP my poor BP)


You can tell its coming upto full moon Sorry Devil but it had to be used

invincibly ignorant said...

Well that told me

You are so obviously and completely not an immature twat
No siree
It's so clear now

Henry North London said...

If you want to be sworn at I can do that too but I shall refrain as it would be unbecoming at this hour of the evening.

High morals notwithstanding every family including mine have had the spectre of abortion and yes one of my erstwhile cousins is an abortion. So go take your hate peddling somewhere else.

I can even tell you what kind of vocal tone you would be using for your last few remarks and as such I dont wish to dignify further such sociopathic crap that you spout from your invincibly ignorant and well formed lips.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"There is more to this than a shallow modern choice ,it is a soul."

Ah, I see, the soul...

It is ironic that Mad Nad should have whined so comprehensively about people on the Committee not disclosing their religious affiliations.

So, those commenting on this thread: please declare any relevent religious affiliations, including any bullshit believe in souls, life at conception, and any belief in fucking sky-fairies, please.

DK

Devil's Kitchen said...

P.S. If should be fairly fucking clear that I am an atheist and do not believe in imaginary friends.

DK

invincibly ignorant said...

''every family including mine have had the spectre of abortion''
Any proof of that or is that projection trying to make you feel better?

'I can even tell you what kind of vocal tone...'
wow that is spooky. Is that because you're a doctor?

'Hate peddlar' I like that one.
I'll use that again

Henry North London said...

No that's because I'm a psychiatrist with section 12(2)approval under the mental health act 1983 I suggest you google that and see how much regard the government give to me. I see people like you all the time. As for my family hands off.

It proves one thing...You are or have studied psychology and you use it to further your hate.

JuliaM said...

"If should be fairly fucking clear that I am an atheist and do not believe in imaginary friends."

You know, you don't have to be religious to feel that later abortions are a ghastly way for society to resolve the problem of unwanted children, and that the 'disposable life' aspect to today's modern society is possibly not the right way to go...

I can see the point in lowering the age limit as the viability of the fetus increases (though there is the thorny aspect of quality of life to consider too). I'd be in favour of far earlier & easier-to-get abortions in the first two months, too.

Disclaimer: Not religious at all. Though if I'm wrong and there is a hell, I hope it has room for Brown, Blair & the entire EU contingent.

Henry North London said...

Julia there is a hell. Hell is other people and illness. Illness can strike anytime and no one can foretell that.

So pray to God?/Fate/Destiny/ the formless one or whomever or even your worst enemies to destroy Brown Blair and the EU contingent. Be careful what you wish for. In my experience it can sometimes come true.

invincibly ignorant said...

'As for my family hands off. '
you mentioned them first tough guy

'It proves one thing...You are or have studied psychology and you use it to further your hate.'

er no it doesn't because I haven't(or aren't )
next guess.

'how much regard the government give to me'
It can't be as much as you give yourself surely

Anyway what of this hate that you say I speak
Any examples

Henry North London said...

What took you?

I was expecting your dulcet tones sometime back.

Im sorry I dont have time to argue the toss with you now.

Maybe tomorrow...

Ms Robinson said...

Hey Invincibly Ignorant you shitfor fuckingbrains, I did not fancy a shag. If you have ever loved someone but known that you cannot continue because you are not on the same path you may know a little of what happened. And I had taken the pill, as I had done for years. So stop being so obviously stupid and simplistic because this is not a black and white issue. Having a child when your life is falling apart and you have been advised not to have them and therefore have always taken the contraceptive pill..you will never know how it feels. And that, in a nutshell, is why it is not your fucking decision. Twat.

Henry North London said...

Hear Hear Ms Robinson...

Thats all folks...

Katy Newton said...

I'm with Mrs R all the way here. Now look here, Invincibly Ignorant (great handle, by the way, and thanks for the warning): it takes two people to make a baby, not one, and if the bloke wants to keep the baby so badly I'm more than happy for him to do so provided he gestates it himself. In short, I will happily join you in your antiabortion crusade on the day that medical science works out a way for men to take responsibility for their sexual activity.

invincibly ignorant said...

Ah what a charming English rose

As you say the issue is not 'black and white' but those of us who have a different opinion than you are 'shitfor fuckingbrains' hmmm
nicely nuanced.

As for Katy Newton (no relation I'm sure) that has to be THE most dumbass excuse for infanticide EVAH!

the a&e charge nurse said...

Aren't we in danger of reaching Belsenesque proportions when it comes to the production line mentality that has arisen around termination of pregnancy ?

Certainly, current medical practices have nothing to do with the original spirit of the abortion bill.

I think we are up to 185,000 deaths each year now having started from a baseline of <25,000 when the act was first introduced in 1967.

Just about every ITU treats adults who are neither sentient or concious, nor are they ever they likely to be - if thats the argument used to rationalise the current free for all maybe we could apply some of the abortion principles to those in PVS as well ?

Ms Robinson said...

Dear Invincibly Igorant of Tunbridge Wells,

I don't think you expressed an opinion: you made an ignorant assumption about me which is hardly deserving of debate. When you develop opinions - and an ability to articulate them as well as I can - it would be interesting to hear them. But making assumptions about my life is not expressing an opinion. Perhaps you should get a life. And please, do come and have a go if you're smart enough. I assure you, I haven't begun on you - but then it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Newmania said...

P.S. If should be fairly fucking clear that I am an atheist and do not believe in imaginary friends.

DK



I admire your faith. I have no doubt I can match you Betrand Russell for Dawkins for Hitchens ,but they only make the inadequacy of materialism clearer.

( Aditionally being deep like this does get you a lot of casula shags :))

JuliaM said...

"Aren't we in danger of reaching Belsenesque proportions when it comes to the production line mentality that has arisen around termination of pregnancy ?"

Yoicks! I actually agree with 'a&e charge nurse'.

Surely a sign of the impending apocalypse...

"I will happily join you in your antiabortion crusade on the day that medical science works out a way for men to take responsibility for their sexual activity."

Pretty sure the CSA (if it worked...) would have that covered. Or is it ok to force child maintenance out of a man who didn't want a child, but not ok to give him a choice to keep the baby...?

Katy Newton said...

As for Katy Newton (no relation I'm sure) that has to be THE most dumbass excuse for infanticide EVAH!

You miss the point, which is hardly surprising on account of the fact that you are, as you say yourself, ignorant.

Katy Newton said...

I am with Mr Kitchen and Unity on this. I am not pro-abortion; it's a last resort, isn't it? But I am pro-choice and I'm comfortable with the 24-week limit. I'm hardly going to change my mind on that because some frothing troll's chucking the word "infanticide" around. The ludicrously melodramatic language used by the pro-life brigade only underlines their lack of compelling evidence for reducing the 24 week limit.

Ms Robinson said...

Katy, I too am pro-choice but the semantics mean that people think that means pro-death. Hence my article. And as for 'Belsen like proportions' it is a ridiculous assumption because abortion is not about collective statistics. In any case has the nurse considered the increase in population since those statistics began?

Abortion is the last resort but as I said in my post, it is unfortunately a necessary one.

Henry North London said...

If its any help I read in 1979 in Woman magazine of all places that 3 million children had been aborted by then you can well imagine how much it is now.

Katy Newton said...

Mrs R - quite so.

I don't really care how many abortions take place, either, as long as every child that is born is wanted and properly taken care of. "Belsenesque", "infanticide" - anyone who comes out with that sort of overemotive crap has already lost my attention (sorry, A&ECN, but "Belsenesque" is a bit over the top).

Pretty sure the CSA (if it worked...) would have that covered.

I think your "if it worked" rider rather deals with that point for me, but even if it did work, are you really saying that writing a cheque once a month is in any way equal to being pregnant for nine months, giving birth and having primary responsibility for a child for a minimum of 16 years to follow?

JuliaM said...

"...are you really saying that writing a cheque once a month is in any way equal to being pregnant for nine months, giving birth and having primary responsibility for a child for a minimum of 16 years to follow?"

Primary responsibility...? I thought the enlightened modern marriage believed in equality of duties now?

No, I'm merely pointing out that if you want to have the total freedom to force a man to respect your wishes regarding the abortion of the child you are both responsible for bringing into being, then the chap should have the option of not paying child support if he would rather not have a child.

Newmania said...

I have continued to take Unity to task on her blog and I think she is currently trying to wriggle ot of the revolting implications of her materalist genuflection to that smug little god "science ". I would not trust a scientist to sit the right way round on toilet seat myself .

They say what thewy are paid to say

the a&e charge nurse said...

Fair point Katy - I think the 1967 act was a humane response to women being forced into taking unsafe and drastic measures to terminate unwanted pregnancies

But would the legislators have framed the act slightly differently if they had anticipated that the abortion rate would reach 1/3rd of the birth rate ?

It won't be too long before we have more abortions than births, if carry on as we are - I'm not sure we can really consider this as progress

Katy Newton said...

I thought the enlightened modern marriage believed in equality of duties now?

Um, I hate to point this out, but if the CSA is involved, which was your point, then the couple in question are probably no longer a couple.

But the reality is that in most cases where parents are together it is still the woman who provides the majority of the childcare, and still the woman who is most likely to give up her job or work around childcare commitments.

Katy Newton said...

then the chap should have the option of not paying child support if he would rather not have a child.

Oh, I agree with that. Absolutely.

Katy Newton said...

But would the legislators have framed the act slightly differently if they had anticipated that the abortion rate would reach 1/3rd of the birth rate ?

Why does it matter?

JuliaM said...

"Oh, I agree with that. Absolutely."

Good. That's actually pretty refreshing to hear...

"Why does it matter?"

Because, no matter if you are non-religious, there is still the fact that we are taking a disposable attitude to potential life (yes, yes, miscarriages, periods, I am aware of the biology involved. Intimately.. ;)).

It's still a concious decision that the potential life you carry is 'inconvenient' at this time and society permits you to do away with it.

And that makes me uneasy...

the a&e charge nurse said...

Katy - are you suggesting that if we have even one abortion, then there is no logical argument against 1/2 million.....or more ?

Look at the trajectory [from 1967] because at the moment that's the way we're heading, especially if, as proposed, nurses will be able to offer abortion services.

Katy Newton said...

What have the numbers got to do with abortion? That's my point. Say that instead of 1/3 of all pregnancies ending in an abortion (if that's right; I don't know if it is), the birth rate had dropped by 1/3 because:

(a) women and men had either taken to abstaining unless they knew they would keep any baby that resulted, and/or

(b) one or both of each couple had had themselves sterilised because they knew they would not want children, and/or

(c) they had both been injected with a foolproof, or 99.9% foolproof contraceptive drug rather than using the traditionally more risky barrier methods.

Would you still have a problem with the fact that 1/3 fewer babies were being born?

Katy Newton said...

I have to admit, I'm sort of losing the will to live. Abortion discussions are pointless. Here's what I think:

1. I have never met a woman who had an abortion who took the decision lightly.

2. It's a last resort and a decision that no one has to make.

3. No child should have to grow up with parents or a parent who can't or won't take care of it properly or who resent it for being born.

4. Up to 24 weeks the interests of the mother are more important than the foetus.

5. Forcing a woman to carry a child she does not want is a recipe for disaster, which is why the 1967 act was passed in the first place.

6. The decision whether or not to have a child is a decision that each person is entitled to make for themselves; if every single person in the country decided tomorrow not to have children that would be a decision that each of them was entitled to take; if one woman is entitled to have an abortion then so are 1/3 of all pregnant women.

7. If society wants to stop women from having abortions then the way to do that is to provide incentives for them to keep their babies, such as making it easier for single parents to work and parent at the same time.

Little Black Sambo said...

Katie: "What have the numbers got to do with abortion?"

Dead right. It is either wrong or not wrong. If wrong, then there needs to be some strong reason to allow it. If it is not wrong, then any limit (24 weeks for instance) is arbitrary or political. No one here so far has argued for "abortion up to birth" or infanticide, but if not, why not?

Longrider said...

I have continued to take Unity to task on her blog and I think she is currently trying to wriggle ot of the revolting implications of her materalist genuflection to that smug little god "science ".

I wonder what Unity makes of his recent sex change?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Abortion used to be seen as a final, and drastic measure to resolve an intractable dilemma - for many the 1967 act was a welcome and compassionate piece of legislation.

Today we have 185,000+ abortions per year [as opposed to just over 600,000 births].
This number continues to rise and if nurses are given authority to provide such services [as has been proposed], may rise even more steeply.

Some commentators here have suggested that numbers are completely irrelevant.

The DoH are currently reluctant to release data on multiple abortions amongst under 18's, for example - as many as 5 [allegedly] in extreme cases.

We are now [finally] paying more attention to foetal pain which probably occurs at 17weeks [according to several authorities] given the state of nervous system development by the later stages of the second trimester.

Is it possible that the abortion rate is being driven [at least to a certain extent] by the numbers don't matter mid set ?

It's not as if the range/accessibilty of contraception has not improved significantly over the last 40years, and sex education is far more prevelant in schools than it used to be.

So how do we explain an abortion rate that would have horrified most people in 1967 - these days we even have women coming into A&E and asking if we could arrange a termination for them.

More importantly is the common place nature of abortion desensitising all of us to the complex issues around life and death ?

Little Black Sambo said...

A&E. If the unborn child is an obstacle to the parents' "freedom" then, Off with its head. Never mind the freedom of this other human being already in existence with its own unique life (not part of the mother's body".
You could even argue that Nazi eugenics was less evil than the eugenics now practised in our hospitals: their murdering was at least done in pursuit of a principle, diseased and depraved though it was, and not for people's casual convenience. We are not talking about hard cases; very few abortions come into that category.