#1 By: pesco, July 26th, 2013 13:01
#2 By: fuzzyfuzzyfungus, July 26th, 2013 13:11
Like any godless atheist, I can't resist the succulent flesh of the innocent unborn. However, it takes several minutes to fully stretch my auxiliary mandibles for the most efficient abhuman devouring action. Nothing is more frustrating than prepping the mandibles only to get a bite of rubbery toy.
(On a more serious note, what is it about Doing God's Work(tm) that makes people think that boundaries just don't apply to them? I'm pretty sure that there would be unbelievable amounts of hell to pay if radical sex-ed activists were sneaking a choice selection of affectively-engaging scale models into childrens' candy bags; but this is merely 'controversial', which is usually a polite way of saying that all involved will get away with it.)
#3 By: Preston, July 26th, 2013 13:14
Pretty sure that's a serious criminal offense and possibly a federal crime to contaminate packaged food.
#4 By: Ygret, July 26th, 2013 13:19
I don't think those toy "fetuses" will have the desired impact as children add them to their toy boxes. I can see it now, mass fetus slaughter at the hands of G.I. Joe figurine! News at 11.
#5 By: lvl20dm, July 26th, 2013 13:21
i'm using that from now on.
#6 By: Allan_Janus, July 26th, 2013 13:24
Not deep fried, or even on a stick...
#7 By: newliminted, July 26th, 2013 13:35
Why aren't they made of chocolate? I don't understand this.
#8 By: fuzzyfuzzyfungus, July 26th, 2013 13:35
It doesn't help that early-stage fetuses bear a strong resemblance(in practice, I assume it's the other way around) to slightly less pallid Greys, a notably unsympathetic and abduction/vivisection-prone lifeform.
Hey kids, did you know that the answer to 'How is babby formed?' is a weighted average of a Grey and a chestburster?
#9 By: Christopher Waldrop, July 26th, 2013 13:47
To address your more serious note, I occasionally drive by a large billboard that has a lineup of white, smiling, healthy-looking babies. At the top it says, "WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK HAS TO DIE?" The fact that people capable of designing, producing, and paying for such advertising think the issue really is that simple lack the cognitive reasoning skills to understand boundaries. Or they feel it's so simple that any action on their part is justified, because, hey, look what their opponents are guilty of.
Of course there's at least one other possibility, and that is that for them this is a cash cow. They survive on donations, and while lobbying Congress is expensive and time-consuming (and would ultimately be counter-productive if they really were to succeed) stunts like this are a cheap and effective way to drum up donations. It beats working for a living.
#10 By: bbum, July 26th, 2013 13:48
#11 By: RibosomeMatt, July 26th, 2013 13:49
I'm pro-choice, but I hereby move that people who use the phrase "Anti-Choice" automatically lose whatever argument they're in.
That said, the behavior of the activists is reprehensible.
#12 By: Kelly M, July 26th, 2013 13:50
Need to remix w/ the Barbie in the casket from the prior post... :)
#13 By: Andrew Wood, July 26th, 2013 13:51
Surely this is massively counterproductive from the perspective of the anti-choice group? Piss off parents, freak kids out by intruding on their family time? I honestly can't see how anyone thought this would further their agenda.
#14 By: ethicalcannibal, July 26th, 2013 13:55
These people are ridiculous. Anti-choice is really the best name for them, that is easy to say, however "shaming anti sex, anti woman" would be more accurate.
I live literally next door to a planned parenthood that gets these jerks protesting outside all the time. They don't care about anything other than shaming people who go in. They lurk around the perimeter, and take full advantage of their history of violence to scare the bejeezus out of clinic goers.
I take pictures of them whenever they are out there and post them up to a tumblr that mocks them. Engaging with them is totally futile. If they really wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country, which is at an all time low, they would support birth control access, long term reversible birth control like an IUD, and increased factual sex education.
But that's not what this is about. It's about forcing a woman to take responsibility for her actions. See, a baby is a consequence of being a slut, a whore, or a floozy. It's not about the welfare of a child, or they'd be more into child charities for impoverished children. It's about attempting to enforce outdated ideas on sex and gender on women. It is a disingenuous crap movement that has a lot of violence in it's history, and they sure don't decry the violence done in the name of "pro-life".
As a side note, apparently silently documenting them and posting them online, and being open as to what kind of blog you post them on seems to reduce the number of protestors willing to show up. My local clinic has had a severe reduction in protestors since I started popping over for pictures every time they made an appearance.
Sorry this got long. It's a big issue to me.
#15 By: ethicalcannibal, July 26th, 2013 13:57
If they were pro-life they would not be into the death penalty. Which the majority of them are into. They would not be into the war, which the majority of them are into. They would not allow violent criminals to bomb clinics, or shoot and kill clinic doctors and workers. You certainly don't see the "pro-life" community decrying that violence, and shunning these criminals. They give a wink and a nod, and move on because the ends justifies the means.
Any cause that includes violence on that level loses the argument for me.
#16 By: Neil Mcconnell, July 26th, 2013 14:04
I can't imagine what message they meant that to send. What I'm getting is something like, "Hey kids, sometimes, in life, you may find yourself with a fetus that you clearly did not seek out or want. But the good news is that you can just get rid of it"
#17 By: Neil Mcconnell, July 26th, 2013 14:05
I mean, was there ever a more perfect metaphor for an unplanned pregnancy that a toy fetus in a bag of candy?
#18 By: Jorpho, July 26th, 2013 14:08
I agree. These are rather nasty, ghoulish-looking things – the ending of Akria and 2001 spring to mind. The article suggests they might have a certain tactile appeal, which just makes me wonder if maybe their heads grow when you squish their bodies, or something. I'm just baffled.
#19 By: c, July 26th, 2013 14:12
Ironically, this probably has the opposite effect of what they wanted-- it's not a representation of a tiny human life, it's a rubber toy that kids will toss around and eventually throw in the trash.
#20 By: Ian_James_Anthony, July 26th, 2013 14:15
Eh. It seems as misleading as "pro-life." No one is against life, so that's a dumb thing to call someone, and no one is anti making choices, so that seems a bit silly. Can't we just call each other pro and anti-abortion, since that is the issue at hand?
next page →