Dispatches- Abortion: What we need to Know

Well, this programme nailed it's colours to the mast pretty early on with it's opening statement. It was an extremely biased piece of programming from start to finish.
Who is the 'we' that needs to know? Women? Or just people who want to tell women what to do?
It was gross even having a woman narrating it, women don't normally get to narrate serious documentaries, of course. It's just a piece of emotive trickery.
Foetal pain, spine and skulls being crushed all sounds horrific. But what is the Ialternative? Really, what is it? Do we put unborn children before sentient women? Is a woman's biological ability to breed more important than their mental health? Is this the dark ages?
I felt sick with anger the shots of the digital images of the foetus in the womb because that is something amazing and beautiful being used as propaganda against women. The whole 'pain' aspect is completely irrelevant to me: the same people who oppose abortion don't care about killing a cow to make a burger, they feel pain too. But the right of the HUMAN is seen as priority. Why not in this case? The foetus is UNBORN. The woman is the human. Can't we show her compassion?
The fact is, women only have very late abortions for the most horrific of reasons. It's not done casually at this stage, and it's only 1% of the abortion statistics. These women shouldn't be demonised, or made to feel guilty. Those women must go through hell.
They don't need some squirrel-faced Christian do-gooder MAN judging them. It's 'barbaric' (to use his words) to force women to give birth to babies they don't want. Who's going to bring the baby up? The woman will be written off as a single mother and therefore scum. Or if she gives it to the state, then god help it. But they don't think up to this point do they? It's all just dogmatically focused on this foetus.
The documentary stopped even pretending to be scientific halfway though and just went for full on emotive claptrap. I'd like to punch those people outside the Marie Stopes clinic, telling me what the 'bottom line' is. No, here's the bottom line:
If I was pregnant, and there was no abortion (which is where all this is heading, make no mistake, this is using science by stealth to erode women's rights) I wouldn't go get a backstreet abortion, I'd jump off a cliff. There. I get the final say. It's my body. I'm not an incubator. End of story. Bottom line. My life. My body.
interviewing a 16 year old who decided to keep her baby: well good for her! When her baby is 16, she'll be 32. What education will she have? How many books has she read, places has she seen? What does a 16 year old have to teach a child? Which is the greater tragedy?
Worse than that was the footage they showed of abortions which made me feel physically sick. Proper horror movie stuff. Was that supposed to sway me? It just made me feel more certain that I'm right that the pro-life side has to be so vulgar.
One in three women will have an abortion at some point. There will always be stupid kids who take it lightly, but most women don't, and most do not need to be made to feel any guiltier than they already do.
I really hate it too when they speak to women who've had abortions and regretted it. Because there are many, many more who don't look back. And how dare you try and take away our rights, something that you made use of? It was your decision.
I think I only heard the word 'woman' mentioned about twice in this whole programme.
PS. I implore you all to read this article for what we REALLY need to know about abortion; it's so well written, and really admirable, I just found it to be a revelation: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2007/10/abortion_still

The Daily Mail + Jim Davidson= Angry Me

So I watched the first ten minutes of Hell's Kitchen because of the hoo-ha. God: what a despicable person Jim Davidson is. 'I should go back to my own kind' he said, sounding like a caveman. What exactly is his own kind? The type of language he uses is disgusting and it's nothing to do with his age. He's not that old, and being middle-aged isn't an excuse for being an ignorant, cruel piece of shit.
What really bugs me is when someone is sexist/ homphobic/ racist and then says 'well I'm not PC'. It's nothing to do with PC, you arrogant prick. It's about treating your fellow human beings with the same respect they show you. It's none of your fucking business who Brian Dowling sleeps with. Why would you CARE??? WHY??? ARGH I'M SO ANGRY!!!
Stupidly, I'm still reading the Daily Mail and two things annoyed me in it today (just two? I know) Firstly Amanda Platell wrote an article saying 'why I, a feminist, abhor how this abortion law has been so abused'. Firstly, she's not a feminist. I read her column and she's always saying very UN-feminist things. Secondly, whilst I agree that people shouldn't have very late abortions, what if women don't find out until very late? What if it's a choice between throwing themselves off a cliff or having it? Because that's what it would come down to, to someone who felt passionately enough about being in control of their own destiny. No woman, no baby. End of story.
Cutting the limit is just a step into the hands of those evangelical christians who shoot surgeons outside abortion clinics in the deep south. Just one step in that direction is a wrong one. I'd rather they did abortions on teenage girls against their WILL at dinner at school that gave those mad fuckers one INCH. This is my rational argument, deal with it.
The second thing that annoyed me was also an attack on women, this time a lovely double page spread with this headline: 'Julia was devastated when a rapist stole her virginity. Now, 10 years on, she admits if she hadn't been drunk, it might never happened.'
I don't think you need me to tell you what is wrong with that headline (apart from the fact it's too long). but in case you do, IT IS NOT A WOMAN'S FAULT WHEN SHE GETS RAPED. EVER. It doesn't matter if she's lying pissed in the gutter with her knickers round her ankles. Why do they always seek to blame the woman? Why is the man never held accountable? Why don't they say, 'if the bloke hadn't been a violent predator it would never have happened'? The way in which blame is subtly and not so subtly shifted onto women speaks volumes about the appalling conviction rate for rape in this country. The whole message of the article is anti-drinking propaganda (only for women of course, men can drink as much as they want and stick their dicks where they like) and for women to 'be on their guard' and basically not have fun, or they deserve it when they get attacked.
Well here's a thought, Daily Mail tossers, women should be allowed to drink what they want, wear what they want, go where they want, and not live in fear, and not be blamed when someone hurts them. So fuck you.