In response to my last question: apparently not.

Enter Idaho: State Representative Ann Rydalch wants abortion providers to show women pictures of their fetuses before performing abortions. Well, I for one think this is a great idea. After all, we all know that women are nothing more than glorified children who are incapable of making decisions for themselves, and need good people like Ann Rydalch to look out for their best interests. I wonder, though, what will happen if a woman refuses to look at the pictures? Are we going to force her eyes open, demand that she look at the fundie porn and recognize the errors of her ways?

Personally, I think Rep. Rydalch should expand the scope of this legislation. Women should have to look at pictures of pretty babies before buying tampons, so they can see what they are giving up every time they don't rut during ovulation. But why stop there? We should be forced to look at doctored pictures of our tonsils before having them removed. Or look at pretty cancer cells before radiation therapy. Maybe even look at pictures of Pam Anderson before having a mastectomy. It's only fair--why stop at abortion, when there are so many other areas of women's health to take over?


annamaria at 10:12 AM

0 spoke


Post a Comment