July 21, 2004

HORROR OF HAPPY CHILDREN

The Perth Sunday Times reports:

A Perth abortion clinic objected to plans for a childcare centre on a neighbouring property because the sight of children might upset its patients.

In an objection lodged with the City of Swan, the clinic operators said the sight and sound of children playing in a neighbouring property might cause emotional strain for women considering terminating a pregnancy.

Here’s a compromise: the childcare centre is allowed to be built, but all children attending it must be dead.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 21, 2004 11:52 PM
Comments

A more succinct analysis is not possible. Well said.

Posted by: Pat at July 22, 2004 at 12:05 AM

Obviously animal rights activists....

Posted by: Joe at July 22, 2004 at 12:48 AM

Well, that pretty much sums it up. They are not "pro-choice;" they are pro-abortion, or even anti-life.

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at July 22, 2004 at 12:53 AM

A Tough one.

I'm anti-abortion (after the first trimester) based on the uncertainty as to where the dividing line between 'disposal of a clump of cells' and 'infanticide' should be drawn. I'm pro-abortion even late in gestation in cases where the kid won't live long, mother in danger etc. I'm not religious at all, this is a secular ethical issue to me.

I have a few friends who have had abortions. Every one of them has regretted it, some still in emotional pain from it 20 years later. But I'm sure there are many to whom it was just a massive relief, and remember, pregnancy is tough on the mother, physically and emotionally. A young kid, still in her early teens, with no parental or partner support, yes, motherhood would be bloody hard on her.

Maybe it's because my wife and I had 5 miscarriages before we finally hit the Jackpot (Andrew turned 3 a few days ago) that my felling - as opposed to thinking - is that those stupid women don't know how fortunate they are, and that there are childless couples who would give their right arms to be able to conceive.

So yes, having a childcare centre next door would be very appropriate: it wouldn't affect some, but those like my friends who bitterly regret decisions made decades ago, yes, it could stop them from making the same mistake.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at July 22, 2004 at 01:19 AM

It is amazing the lengths evil will go to to pretend that it is not evil. Wanting to ban happy children because unhappy mothers might have their feelings hurt?! Inconceivable (with apologies of course to "The Princess Bride"). Or perhaps, I should coin the neologism, "Deconceivable"...
To lay it out in mathematical terms:

Pro-choice = Pro-life + ____________

Anyone? Bueller?

Posted by: m at July 22, 2004 at 02:12 AM

Free idea:
pro-life municipalities could rename the street an abortion clinic is on (just that block) "Baby-Killer Street" or somesuch. That address would look really nice on letterhead.

Personally, I have no problem with abortion immediately following fertilization, say a couple of weeks; but after that, parents must have as their first priority, the health and safety of their children. That goes for Michael Jackson, too.

Posted by: DougM at July 22, 2004 at 02:15 AM

Alan - yes, what you said. And happy birthday to young Andrew!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 22, 2004 at 02:33 AM

Why stop with adjacent properties? Perhaps children within a mile or two of the clinic would be a traumatizing sight for mothers-not-to-be.

And, were the shoe on the other foot: could a church raise objections to a proposed abortion clinic near its property on grounds that its presence would be upsetting to its pro-life parishioners?

Posted by: c at July 22, 2004 at 03:01 AM

This is part of the left's belief that people (well, people on the left) have the right not to be upset, challenged, or offended in any way. You know, criticism = crushing of dissent, opposing affirmative action = racism and hurts people's feelings and so should be banned, etc. They're all about control.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at July 22, 2004 at 04:14 AM


>Pro-choice = Pro-life + ____________

>Anyone? Bueller?

I'll take a crack at it.

Pro-choice = Pro-life + Anti-welfare mother pumping out kids who will grow up poor and become criminals and/or future welfare mothers, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and violence and parasitism.

Pro-choice = Pro-life + Anti-bringing a child into the world with profound physical and/or mental deformities that would make its life a living hell.

Pro-choice = Pro-life + Pro-reasonable belief that human life does not begin at conception, but when the central nervous system forms ("cogito, ergo sum") First trimester A-OK, third trimester out of the question.

Posted by: Dave S. at July 22, 2004 at 04:56 AM

OK Dave -- Nice to see you are the judge of whose life is worth living and whose is not. Do you also go by the name 'God'?

Do you ever wonder if your parents made the right "choice"? And I'm not talking Coke vs. Pepsi.

Posted by: Eric at July 22, 2004 at 06:03 AM

Where would such a ban end? No happy kids to be seen along the routes leading to the clinic? No kids allowed within a mile of someone who is about to have, or has just had, an abortion?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 22, 2004 at 06:07 AM

And on that note, didja hear about the lady who culled two of her triplets because raising three kids all at once would interfere with her exciting career of giving lectures at college and in general being some sort of feminist celeb? It's one thing to say that abortion should remain legal, or not be totally prohibited, or something, but it's another thing to... well, just read.* (Via A Small Victory.) I can only wonder if these people realize that they are shooting themselves in their own feet.

*Try "laexaminer" as ID and password. If that doesn't work, there's that website where you can get logons. I can't remember the name of it.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 22, 2004 at 06:18 AM

And the pro-abort movement continues to blacken its own eyes merely by being itself.

Posted by: Sage McLaughlin at July 22, 2004 at 06:54 AM

If that doesn't work, there's that website where you can get logons. I can't remember the name of it.

Bugmenot.com

Posted by: Bashir Gemayel at July 22, 2004 at 07:27 AM

"I'm Anti-Abortion And I Vote. And So Do All My Children."

Posted by: Uncle MIlk at July 22, 2004 at 10:46 AM

Jesus, I'd have thought the squalling ruckus made by a herd of yard apes would have made mother more keen on abortion.

It makes me consider pushing for retrospective abortion laws.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at July 22, 2004 at 11:01 AM

"Pro-reasonable belief that human life does not begin at conception"

if it isn't a human at conception, what is it? a tree? a rock?

Posted by: samkit at July 22, 2004 at 11:24 AM

Please, let's have no ceaseless blogfight about the pros and cons of abortion and when life starts and other god-only-really-knows-for-sures. My bandwidth, etc. It's not really the point of Tim's post anyway. You can be pro-abortion and still be revolted by the attitude of some of its supporters.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 22, 2004 at 12:02 PM

I'm de-facto pro-choice myself, but it's funny how easily you can find a feminist who fiercely defends abortion in general, while being willing to argue against selective abortion, e.g., 'culling' of female foetuses in countries like China. If the little sprogs aren't human beings, how can they possibly be gendered?

Posted by: cuckoo at July 22, 2004 at 12:05 PM

"those stupid women don't know how fortunate they are".

Hmmmm, one person's fortune may be another's burden.

As for the "stupid" tag, well just because somebody makes a decision that doesn't fit with your beliefs it doesn't make them unintelligent and regretting a decision after the fact doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't the right decision at the time.

Try and empathise (or at least sympathise) with those involved.

Posted by: Darlene at July 22, 2004 at 12:09 PM

Anyone who doubts that children in the womb are children should check out these photos. (A warning they are quite graphic and "may disturb some viewers".)

Anyone who wants to know why women have abortions should check out this link. These stats are from the US but have been collected by the abortion industry.

Posted by: TN at July 22, 2004 at 12:24 PM

Okay, TN, I said don't start it. This will NOT be another forum highjacked by abortion (anti AND pro) hysterics. If you can't even summon the common courtesy to do as I (the administrator of this website) requested and STICK TO THE TOPIC then please don't comment here.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 22, 2004 at 01:04 PM

The statistics are from the abortion industry as are the photos.

If what I said is not part of the topic feel free to strike me down. If not why brandish me as "hysterical"?

As Ms Harris appears to want to exert control over what is and is not part of a topic perhaps Mr Blair needs to disclose to everyone who enters his site that he doesn't control this blog.

Posted by: TN at July 22, 2004 at 02:52 PM

It seems that there are too many people in this day and age who want us not to offend anyone who ius a meber of a favoured group. Yet they don't care about offending us on an individual basis.

For example, I used to live next to a house occupied by a bunch of students. These students were typical sharing caring, anti-war, love the gay whales types. Yet they didn't seem to think it was inconsistent to come home late at night and put there stereo on at full blast. they din't seem to think that they should not make a mess of the footpath.

In fact when I kindly told them that it might be best for us all if they showed a bit of consideration for their neighbours, I was accused of being a facist, conservative.

I then pointed out that they were in truth the facists in that cared about the Paletsinians, the 'refugees, and all manner of "oppressed groups", but couldn't actually show good manners to their neighbours.

Posted by: Toryhere at July 22, 2004 at 02:58 PM

I think it may be helpful in several ways to have child care centers near all abortion clinics.

Without passing judgement on abortion,perhaps it would be better to have a final reality check before committing to abortion.
Secondly perhaps it's not the clients these people are concerned about,maybe it's themselves.Seeing day after day young children playing.I couldn't work in that enviroment.If that's the case they should live with it.
Thirdly if only a small portion of women changed their mind it would solve our ageing population problem,decreasing the need for large scale immigration .

Posted by: gubbaboy at July 22, 2004 at 07:07 PM

TN: okay, you're banned. Now you can play the martyr.

By the way, gubbaboy gives a good demonstration of how to stay on topic. You may want to study his comment for future reference.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 22, 2004 at 09:11 PM

I have lots of email addresses so have fun banning them all.

There are no terms and conditions on the use of this site.

I've sent an email to T Blair asking him if he is a wimp or under the control of a dictatorial windbag. Tim does barrack for Collingwood so I guess I already know the answer.

You still haven't told me what you think I did wrong.

Posted by: Banned by Ms Harris & Proud at July 22, 2004 at 09:42 PM

There are no terms and conditions on the use of this site.

Let me explain this to you. The site is paid for by Andrea, with content done by Tim.

She does not need a reason to ban you, anymore than she needs a reason to tell you to stop pooping on her front lawn.

Just remember that.

Posted by: Quentin George at July 22, 2004 at 10:13 PM

What a tangled web we weave.

Let me explain this to you.

Who pays for the site is irrelevant. There are other forum sites I comment on and these sites clearly say what is OK and what is not OK.

I run my own forum and it has clearly stated rules and procedures.

Everyone knows the rules before they start to add their 3 cents worth.

As there are no terms and conditions on this site for placing comments on it none can be imposed retrospectively. (Well they can be but think of dear old Timmy's reputation for supporting the free market and free speech.)

What a farce!

We need some rules pronto. Let me help:
1. Nothing can be said on this site which Ms Harris (administrator and owner of this glorious website) finds offensive. Her decisions will be made without consulting Mr Blair and will be made without warning.
2. See rule 1.

Posted by: Banned by Ms Harris & Proud at July 22, 2004 at 10:33 PM

Oh gawd, a confused "you're stepping on my free speach [sic] rights" person...I thought that type went extinct when Usenet stopped being cool circa 6 years ago.

Who pays for the site is irrelevant.

Nonsense. This website domain is private property, the owner can do whatever the hell she wants with it (within the legal framework, naturally). I guess you're one of those "what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine" people? Funny, I think you'd be the first crypto-socialist pro-lifer I've met.

As there are no terms and conditions on this site for placing comments on it none can be imposed retrospectively.

Nonsense again. This isn't a business that may need to conform to certain rules of conduct, such as no retroactive altering of terms of use. Your being allowed to post here is a privilege, not a right, and can be taken away at will. You have no contract with Spleenville and thus no right to anything.

Well they can be but think of dear old Timmy's reputation for supporting the free market and free speech.)

See comment above about idiots who don't get that free speech rights do not apply to speech on private property. You have no right to have your speech subsidized by other people. Go whine on your own dime.

What a farce!

You've certainly nailed the content of your post with that description.

We need some rules pronto. Let me help: (...) Her decisions will be made without consulting Mr Blair and will be made without warning.

How on earth would you know Tim hasn't already given Andrea carte blanche to moderate his blog comments as she sees fits? There's that adage about assuming stuff which you may want to read up on.

In closing, since you're apparantly "proud" to be banned, perhaps that Peter fellow from a few threads down could send you the URL for that mythical place where the people who were banned on Spleenville allegedly all congregate.

Posted by: PW at July 23, 2004 at 12:25 AM

I'm glad people wear their banishment like a badge of honor. It lets me know that they're going to waste my time before they actually get to do it.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 23, 2004 at 12:30 AM

Mr. Banned, I'd try to see it from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 23, 2004 at 03:25 AM

A Perth abortion clinic objected to plans for a MacDonald's with a play area on a neighbouring property because the sight of children might upset its patients.

A Perth abortion clinic objected to plans for a Children's Hospital on a neighbouring property because the sight of children might upset its patients.

A Perth abortion clinic objected to plans for a pediatrician's office on a neighbouring property because the sight of children might upset its patients.

----Flip side

The Perth Sunday Times reports:

A Perth childcare centre objected to plans for an abortion clinic on a neighbouring property because the sight of pregant women might upset its children.


In an objection lodged with the City of Swan, the center operators said the sight and sound of human life being exterminated in a neighbouring property might cause emotional strain for children considering humanity.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at July 23, 2004 at 04:30 AM

Could've been worse- what about a coathanger factory? Or a fishing store, specialising in yabby pumps?

Posted by: Habib at July 23, 2004 at 11:43 AM

I am with Dave and Harry and Darlene.

Habib, you are awful!

Posted by: kae at July 23, 2004 at 04:26 PM

Habib, your effing twisted... don't change Dude.

I once knew this chick that used Abortion like a contraceptive, none of mine thank god. I told her a joke once "Q: whats red and crawls up a mothers leg? A: A homesick abortion" and she burst into tears. I have no idea why!

Posted by: Dog at July 23, 2004 at 05:54 PM

I have read your views on the topic of abortion.

I am a male who a few years ago had a girlfriend who had an abortion. We used contraceptives but they obiously did not work that time. Our society, which I should mention also uses sex to sell products, gives young people the impression that its safe to have sex as long as you use contraceptives correctly.
At the time both me and my girlfriend were young and unable to support a child as we were both wanting to go to university. If we she did not have an abortion I would have had to go straight into the work force to help support a baby while she would have been on welfare.
Things were not easy as you could imagine. It was hard enough going through the whole thing. A childcare centre next to the abortion clinic would not have helped a young girl (my ex-girlfriend) go through the procedure. It probably would have made things a lot worse emotionally. Something like that could have devistating impact for a girl who had her whole life ahead of her.

Posted by: CB at July 24, 2004 at 03:19 AM

How are TN's comments "hysterics" and banned and yet Harris can throw out personal attacks, " Mr. Banned, I'd try to see it from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."? Really Andrea, just what are the rules? I have seen your comments on many websites and you often use vulgar ad hominum attacks to counter opinion with which you disagree. I scanned this thread and do not see where TN has been outrageous, certainly he has not crossed any line that you have not bulldozed across. The topic is abortion and he commented on abortion. And he is banned now for straying off topic? WTF?

Posted by: mikem at July 24, 2004 at 04:12 AM

perhaps CB..but then again it may have made it a bit easier for the child

Posted by: mike a. at July 24, 2004 at 05:33 AM

The topic is abortion and he commented on abortion

No, the topic was an abortion clinic's reluctance to accept a childcare centre on an adjacent property, and most emphatically not the fundamental pros and cons of abortion. Are you the type who would hijack a community council's discussion of, say, new bike paths in order to rant about the pros and cons of democracy?

Posted by: PW at July 24, 2004 at 12:41 PM

Fuck off, mikem. There, that was your ad hominem attack.

CB: interesting how you phrase it -- your girlfriend was a "girl who had her whole life ahead of her." Obviously this realization (that baby = end of fun swinging single life, not that having a baby would result in your girlfriend's immediate death) didn't occur to you while you were totally into believing what Big God Media told you about sex. That's too bad. (I'll bet you are a total cynic about anything else you see in an ad though, and are willing to fulminate on the Lies of Media about any other subject along with anyone else.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 24, 2004 at 01:14 PM

PW: That is quite an anology you draw. From bike paths to political science/ from abortion clinics to abortion itself. You think that's a logical comparison? If you believe a discussion of the rights of abortion providers to not be confronted with live children is totally seperate from abortion itself, then so be it. I'll guess you have a clear idea of what are permissable areas for debate on abortion issues. But to BAN a commentator, then insult him, for "hijacking" a discussion from abortion clinic rights to abortion rights, well.... It seems very hypocritical and personal. Usually when a commentator is banned from discussion boards it is for abusive comments (like Andrea's). I have NEVER, even when reading leftist blogs, seen a commentator banned for not keeping to such a narrow definition of the subject at hand. Andrea is very opinionated, which is great, but she is also quick to insult those who argue against her. For that reason it is especially pathetic to see someone banned for "straying from topic".

Posted by: mikem at July 24, 2004 at 01:42 PM

Shock value idiots like TN are the reason the pro-life movement is marginalized and stuck in a fantatical rut, which is a terrible shame. I think there's a lot of people like myself who are curently pro-choice by default, not because we like abortion, but because we can't hitch our wagons to thoughtless goons who throw up gory pictures because they can't fire their synapses enough to consider the full issue. If there was a political movement to reduce or eliminate abortions by caring for young mothers and treating sex education a little more liberally than the old fundie "Wait Till You're Married (and get so worked over by your hormones that you marry the first person you see and are miserable forever and BTW don't touch yourself either you sinner)" campaign, I'd be happy to support it. But as it is, siding with wackjobs like TN who post gory links will not save any children, so I'm not going there.

So thank you for banning TN and keeping the thread from being hijacked, Andrea.

PS: mikem -- STFU

Posted by: Sortelli at July 24, 2004 at 02:20 PM

PW: That is quite an anology you draw. From bike paths to political science/ from abortion clinics to abortion itself. You think that's a logical comparison?

No, I actually thought it's an analogy, admittedly imperfect as any analogy may be. The basic idea was this: Much like taking a minor case of exercising democracy as an open invitation to discuss democracy itself is rather rude, so is taking a post about one specific action by a pro-abortion facility as an open invitation to discuss abortion rights in general. I notice you don't seem very interested in talking about the much more applicable property-rights angle of what the abortion clinic tried to do. (Neither did most everybody else, but then they also didn't try to force a discussion about abortion rights.)

And for some reason, you steadfastly ignore the fact that Andrea specifically asked that the whole pro/con abortion war stay out of the comments, before TN made his post. She doesn't usually enforce strict adherence to the subjects of Tim's posts, and I for one am grateful for that, so it strikes me as eminently rude to piss all over her when she, for once, asks that certain off-topic discussions not take place. But hey, keep moaning about the injustice of it all, I'm done with you.

Posted by: PW at July 24, 2004 at 03:46 PM

So, despite TN's warnings you clicked on the link and now you are outraged at him for providing the link. Okay. Whatever. People like TN think that abortion is the killing of a growing child. Those kind of pictures (I didn't follow the picture links, but read the descriptions) tend to bear out that point of view. That is why anti-abortionists resort to that. It tends to belie pro-abortionists' view that only a clump of cells has been destroyed, not a child. If you are pro-abortion (or pro-choice) because of pro-life tactics, then that is fine for you. Your criteria reflects your value sysytem, and to each their own. But Andrea banned TN for being off topic and that is simply laughable. Objectively, TN was banned for expressing a pro-life view and not immediately getting 'on topic', that is, abortion clinic rights. I have rarely followed the comment section on this site without seeing the topic expand in much greater fashion than this paltry example. Thats how Tim comments on something in Iraq and we end up talking about leftist hypocrisy, or the media, or politicians etc. Do you really think discussing abortion clinics without mentioning views on abortion itself is realistic? Enough to ban someone? Your cheerleading of Andrea's actions for banning a reasonable commentator (certainly by comparison)is disturbing, especially for what is normally a pro-Western values site.

Posted by: mikem at July 24, 2004 at 05:19 PM

PW: Thanks for reminding me of Andrea's posting of her warning. Many comments before that and well before TN left his first entry and 'hijacked' the discussion of abortion clinics, Andrea left this comment:
"And on that note, didja hear about the lady who culled two of her triplets because raising three kids all at once would interfere with her exciting career of giving lectures at college and in general being some sort of feminist celeb? It's one thing to say that abortion should remain legal, or not be totally prohibited, or something, but it's another thing to... well, just read.* (Via A Small Victory.) I can only wonder if these people realize that they are shooting themselves in their own feet."

Way off the topic of abortion clinics and property rights, isn't it?

Posted by: mikem at July 24, 2004 at 05:46 PM

Mikem: since all you can do is whine and complain, you can do it to yourself in a mirror (or on that other forum or blog where the Sad AA-Like Meeting of the Banned By Andrea meet). Have fun feeling sorry for yourself, loser.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 25, 2004 at 02:57 AM

So, despite TN's warnings you clicked on the link and now you are outraged at him for providing the link.

No, dumbass, I'm outraged at him for resorting to the same kind of cheap tactics used by brain-dead members of PETA who throw blood on fur coats. His tactics are what make it impossible for reasonable people to find a common ground and prevent the need for further abortions. It was perfectly reasonable for Andrea to put an end to that.

Posted by: Sortelli at July 25, 2004 at 09:55 AM

The culling story was so matter of fact it was sickening. What the hell is wrong with women today?

Posted by: Tim G at July 26, 2004 at 12:12 PM

Not all women are like that one, Tim G.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 27, 2004 at 01:03 PM