So a few weeks back I emailed some loony Christian organisation in the US as part of a protest, basically to tell them to stop being such total wankers (they were advocating a boycott of Hallmark because Hallmark, horror of horrors, were selling cards that acknowledged that not everybody is heterosexual, or something).

Their revenge, apparently, was to sign me up for their newsletter. Curses!

(Except not, ‘cause I had the sense to add "nospampleasefundiewankers" to the address, so I can filter it no problem…)

Ellen Degeneres interviews Sen. John McCain; he’s completely unable to give a reason why gay people should be allowed to marry other than "it’s my belief! you can’t argue with my belief! lalalalala!". (To be fair, he does support civil unions and opposes the banning of same-sex partnerships, but that’s sort of the point — he supports everything except calling it marriage, with no readily-apparent reason).

The F-Word talks about why viability shouldn’t matter. It’s argued that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is exactly like forcing someone to donate an organ against their will — no matter how worthy the recipient, the donor always has the right to refuse to use their body to support another person’s life.

Some whisky company came out with adverts promoting stone-age gender roles, and this was the response, including things like "your mom built fighter jets", "your mom played sports", and "your mom was a pilot".

The Tory Scum have failed in their attempt to restrict women’s rights. I’d kindly thank the anti-choice filth to keep their bullshit about "representing the will of the people" to themselves, and also to keep their repressive and outdated policies out of the legal system.

Apparently, the entire Shadow Cabinet voted to reduce the time limit; if nothing else, now there’s yet another reason to vote against the scum.

So, after reading 24 reasons for 24 weeks, I thought I should read the list to which the former was a response, 20 reasons for 20 weeks. I must say, I was rather underwhelmed.

1. Public, parliamentary and medical opinion is changing on late abortion. 63% of MPs, two thirds of GPs, nearly two thirds of the public and more than three-quarters of women support a reduction in the 24-week upper age limit.

Maybe it’s just me, but "lots of other people think it’s a good idea to change" doesn’t sound particularly convincing. I’m not going to support your cause simply because 63% of MPs do (supposedly — the Tory scum who put forward the amendment claims that 2/3rds of Labour MPs have never voted on abortion, so they can’t be all that strongly in favour of it; maybe the Tories and Lib Dems are overwhelmingly in favour to make up for Labour’s apathy?).

On the other hand, I do accept that Parliament must take public opinion into account — but I’d point out that it’s likely that the less-than-a-quarter of women who don’t support the reduction are the ones who really do need it. Would you ban, for example, Judaism, just because "more than three-quarters" of people support the ban?

Update: apparently, the claim that "three-quarters of women support a reduction" is only true if you tell the women you’re polling that doctors can save the lives of babies born as early as 13 weeks. This is a lie: the world’s most premature baby was born at 21 weeks and 5 days, so I don’t really think we can trust the anti-choicers’ statistics.

2. High profile cases of babies surviving well below 24 weeks like Manchester’s Millie McDonagh, born at 22 weeks, and the world’s most premature baby, Amillia Taylor, who was born a week younger, both in October 2006.

Some babies are born before 24 weeks, true, but these are exceptional cases — extremely exceptional. According to one study, 52% of babies born at 24 weeks died in intensive care, and 22% didn’t even make it that far. Of the babies who survived to be discharged, 21% were severely disabled, 16% moderately disabled, 26% mildly disabled, and 10% were normal (25% were "lost to follow-up").

3. High resolution 3D ultrasound images, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell, have shown babies in amazing detail ‘walking’, yawning, stretching and sucking their thumbs in the womb.

Um, so what? How the bloody hell is this relevant to whether abortions should be allowed at any given point? Is the argument "babies are cute! don’t have an abortion!"?

4. In top neonatal units, such as in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 80% of babies born at 24 weeks and 66% of babies born at 23 weeks will survive. Recent figures from University College London are similar.

Firstly, that’s at top neonatal units. The average figures are much lower, and the number of premature babies who survive to have a normal life, without disabilities, are lower still.

5. Recent research, such as that by Professor Sunny Anand from the University of Arkansas, has shown that fetuses are well enough developed to feel pain down to 18 weeks gestation.

Has research also shown that they feel pain during abortion? If not, then this is completely irrelevant (and why reduce it to 20 weeks anyway? surely it should be 18 weeks, or do we not care about the suffering of babies at 19 weeks?).

6. Mothers first feel their babies kick at 19 weeks in a first pregnancy and at 17 weeks in a later pregnancy.

Again, why does this matter? Cuteness is not medically relevant.

7. Stories of babies born alive after botched abortions, as young as 16 weeks, are increasingly common and have understandably shocked the public.

So because the methods aren’t perfect, the practice should be banned?

8. The number of abortions carried out between 20 and 24 weeks has been rising in recent years. Lowering the limit to 20 weeks for normal babies will save almost 2,300 young lives per year.

Correction — lowering the limit to 20 weeks will force almost 2,300 more women per year to have a baby that they don’t want and quite possibly can’t support. Talking about "saving young lives" makes it sound as if abortion is murder. It isn’t, because a foetus isn’t a person and isn’t alive.

9. Leading public figures including Opposition leader David Cameron are calling for a cut to at least 20 weeks.

So because somebody (reasonably) important says we should do something, we should do it? The reason he’s the Leader of the Opposition and not the Prime Minister is that his party didn’t have the support of a majority of voters.

10. Britain has the most liberal abortion laws in Europe. A termination can be obtained up to 24 weeks of pregnancy - double the limits in France and Germany and six weeks later than in Sweden or Norway.

So? Because other countries do it differently, we should change? You fail to show that France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway are actually right.

11. The methods required to abort a post 20 week baby are abhorrent. To avoid a live birth a lethal injection is given into the baby’s heart through the mother’s abdominal wall. The baby is then delivered stillborn or is surgically dismembered and removed from the uterus limb by limb.

Again, just because the methods are bad, the practice should be banned? Why not improve the methods? Also, it has to be said that the methods used to abort a baby without medical help are even worse.

12. A recent Royal College of Psychiatrists report acknowledges a link between abortion and mental illness. This is worse with late abortions, especially those for fetal abnormality.

You don’t say what the link actually is, or what mental illness — depression? Schizophrenia? Obsessive-compulsive disorder? The fact that it’s worse in cases of foetal abnormality suggest that maybe the foetal abnormality has something to do with it there, not the abortion (or not just the abortion, at least).

This sounds like a variation on "the methods are bad, so ban the practice altogether". The reasonable solution would be to make sure that women who have abortions receive the proper support afterwards.

13. The vast majority of late abortions (after 16 weeks) take place in private clinics but are classified as ‘NHS Agency’ (ie charged to the NHS). Abortions over 20 weeks cost from 1,300GBP to 1,600GBP each and there are inevitably financial vested interests involved.

Again, not seeing why this is important. MRIs are expensive, let’s ban those too!

14. Babies are now undergoing surgery in the womb under 24 weeks, the photograph of Samuel Armas having surgery at 21 weeks for spina bifida has received international attention.

I don’t see why this is relevant, either. Is this a variation on the Argument from Cuteness?

15. Very few if any UK graduates are now willing to perform abortions beyond 16 weeks. Almost all doctors performing late abortions in the UK, in BPAS clinics, are from overseas.

So because some doctors refuse to do it, it should be banned?

16. A Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline, supporting an upper limit of 24 weeks, was published in 2004 and needs to be updated in line with the latest evidence on fetal sentience, ultrasound and neonatal survival.

Because the recommendation doesn’t agree with you, it needs to be updated. Right.

17. The British Medical Association’s opposition to lowering the limit is not supported by the majority of its members and almost 1,000 BMA members recently signed a petition against attempts to further liberalise BMA policy.

Citation needed. There’s surprisingly little outcry about it, if this is the case — indeed, I couldn’t find a single mention of it, apart from here.

18. Pregnancy testing kits are freely available at chemists and there is now little excuse for not diagnosing pregnancy long before 20 weeks.

So if someone doesn’t find out they’re pregnant until it’s too late, they deserve everything they get?

19. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report recommending retention of the 24 week upper limit was heavily influenced by pro-abortion witnesses.

And of course, you’d rather it was heavily influenced by anti-abortion witnesses. Of course the witnesses will influence the outcome, that’s what witnesses are for. This sounds, again, like "some influential, impartial group disagrees with us, but they’re clearly in the wrong so they should rethink their decision".

20. (a picture of a baby) All evidence is telling us that it is time to slow down and cut the limit. Please support our campaign.

I can’t tell whether that last point was just the picture of the baby, or that and the line of text beneath it. If it’s the former, then it’s a blatant instance of the Argument from Cuteness (look at the cute baby! vote against abortion now!). If it’s the latter, then it’s a statement without any evidence — again.

I sent a letter to my MP [1] for the first time on Friday, in opposition to the proposal to reduce the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 20. You should do the same; if you’re not sure why, here’s a big list of reasons.

This blog post on Pandagon quotes some random Christian (a lawyer, of all things; I’d assumed Christianity and the law profession were as fundamentally opposed as Christianity and Satanism) thusly:

A 24-page pro-homosexual booklet is set to be distributed to all 16,000 school districts in the nation. The booklet produced by the National Education Association and the American Psychological Association falsely tells students that homosexuality is a "normal expression of human sexuality."

It falsely tells them, does it? Ignoring the split infinitive, who the bloody hell is Richard Thompson, that he knows more about what is and isn’t psychologically normal than a large group of psychologists? Where is his evidence that homosexuality is not a normal psychological state? If all the evidence that hundreds of psychologists can come up with shows that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, then I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to do better than "But my God says it’s not!".

Frickin’ nutjobs…

The F-Word posted a video of some BNP* leader talking about women’s rights.

It’s part of a racist attack on Islam, in which he appears to be trying to cover for his bigotry in one aspect by presenting himself as unbigoted in another; basically, he’s complaining about Islam’s treatment of women. However, he loses all credibility by making it not about a woman’s right to wear what she likes without being spat at and abused in the street, but about his right to look at women wearing low-cut tops. Surprise, surprise, a BNP member who’s completely clueless…

* British Nationalist Party, or Bunch of Nazi Pricks.

Al Gore describes why he’s in favour of gay marriage, and his explanation pretty much demonstrates the double standards of conservatives—they’re opposed (understandably, I suppose) to any kind of promiscuity, and in favour of marriage and commitment and "family values" and so on, but also opposed to allowing a sizable minority of the population to marry; that’s obviously not going to promote promiscuity, but neither is it doing anything to help their other goals.

"Shouldn’t we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one partner regardless of sexual orientation? Because if we don’t do that, then to that extent you are promoting promiscuity and promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity."

On a similar note: an article on why "family values" doesn’t necessarily mean heterosexuality.

It’s a little disturbing to see people—especially Debian developers—expressing opinions like this, this, or this. Thankfully, there are also people expressing opinions like this, this, this, and this to counter it.

It’s bad enough trying to argue that opposition to sexism is "censorship", but just claiming that "Of course we are sexists…Love it or get the fuck out of there." is just idiotic. And saying that lesbians "are compared to a threesome quite favorably" isn’t sexism is just ridiculous—unless you actually believe that lesbians exist for your own pleasure (I’ll leave you to decide just how ridiculous this is); likewise, it’s not "talking about sex" that’s offensive but treating women as if they exist only for the benefit of men.

Debian is meant to be for everybody—regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or anything else at all. However, if your behaviour makes it more difficult for other groups to contribute (i.e., because you’re a sexist arse), then that’s just not acceptable, and if you don’t like it then that’s tough.

(I’m not on Planet Debian, where the argument was taking place, but I am on Planet Debian Community; maybe people to whom this applies will see this, maybe not, but I felt the need to rant anyway.)

An email I just sent to the University’s Equality and Diversity Office (intranet link, sorry):

I’d like to express my concern tha, although posters around the campus warn that racism and homophobia will not be tolerated, they make no mention of sexism. Does the University believe that sexism is not a problem any more, or that it’s less important than racism or homophobia?

While racism and homophobia are, of course, serious issues, and the University’s policy towards them is admirable, sexism is also a serious issue and should be taken just as seriously.

Let’s see what they say.