Let Me Live! A Prairie Dog Video

Have you read Vanda Schmockel’s excellent article on the 40 Days For Life vigil in the current prairie dog? If not, no time like the present! This insane campaign wraps up in a few days but before it does we’ve got a video rebuttal to all the anti-abortion nuts (who I’m sure are perfectly pleasant people when they’re not being like religious fascists) who want to legislate their loony-tunes superstitious beliefs* on regular, functionally-educated, not-crazy people who realize they’re living in the 21st century.

It’s prairie dog’s first video that’s not a TV commercial and it was shot by mega-excellent local filmmaker Eric Hill and stars a certain well-known musician from a big-deal local band.

Please enjoy.

I’m sure we’ll do more videos in the future. Can’t let our new YouTube channel go to waste!

And hey, sorry to be pushy but if you’re a woman and you value your right to make your own decisions concerning your body — or if you’re a man and you’re not a sexist, domineering  asshole — under no circumstances can you vote Conservative in this election. Among their many, many other serious problems, the Conservative Party of Canada is rife with extremist, American-style religious kooks. You probably know this but if you don’t, well, now you’ve been told. The Internet is full of further reading on this topic for enterprising Googlers. Educate yourself.

Also, why not make a donation to Planned Parenthood Regina today? They do good work.

*The idea that a microscopic glob of cells is a human being, for example. The idea that sex is something bad and that people who have it deserve to be punished, for another.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth will never, ever pass up a chance to make a Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo pun.

8 thoughts on “Let Me Live! A Prairie Dog Video”

  1. I sit on the the fence when it comes to the subject of abortion. And I have never and will never vote conservative but I find the following quote a tad offensive.

    *The idea that a microscopic glob of cells is a human being, for example

    I have 3 beautiful children and saw each of their ultrasounds at around 14 weeks. They were not microscopic globs of cells. That statement adds no credibility to the pro choice argument.

  2. Thank you for the comment, Anonymous. Bad news: it’s not okay to sit on the fence on abortion’s legality and I hope that’s not what you meant. Too much is at stake.

    It’s fine, however, to dislike abortion. Abortion isn’t very likeable. It does however need to be legal and accessible. It that’s the fence you sit on, I’m right there with you.

    As for my harsh “globs of cells” comment, I recognize that it seems to crassly diminish the powerful–and normal and healthy–emotional attachment to ultrasounds of potential children. But I’m at a loss what else to say. Emotional responses don’t make a 14 week old embryo a person. And emotional responses are definitely not an acceptable argument for legally stripping women of their reproductive rights.

    It’s okay to love a glob of cells. In fact, it’s kind of beautiful. But it’s not healthy to pretend a glob of cells is anything other than a lovely symbol of a wonderful hope.

    My bottom line is that reproductive autonomy is under attack–real attack, not symbolic attack–by anti-rational religious extremists in the United States and I don’t want that awfulness to become entrenched in Canada. So I’m going to be blunt and harsh about this topic. Sensibilities might be offended along the way. Sorry about that, but reproductive choice and freedom is too important to leave undefended.

    Prairie dog is Regina’s only openly, unambiguously, aggressively pro-choice media outlet, so you can expect more of this type of commentary from us. Hooray!

  3. Perhaps a more sensitive reading of Stephen’s remark would indicate that a “glob of cells” does not have rights that supersede that of an adult woman.

  4. Seems to be me that this comes down to the extremes of both sides shouting. Wonder what the ratio is of people with/without children who are pro-choice or pro-life.

    A compromise should be reached, but this is an example where no side is 100% right or wrong – women should have a choice, but at the same time a 12-week, 16-week, 20-week or whatever-week is not a glob, it is a human in early development.

  5. “Both sides shouting”. Religious extremists want abortion absolutely banned. Pro choicers argue that access to abortion should be unfettered through at least the first trimester. Few if any pro-choices argue for unrestricted access to abortion in the last weeks of pregnancy. The two sides’ positions are not comparable. Talk about false equivalence there, A nony mous.

    Here’s one for you: “I think women should be allowed to vote, but only if they pass a voting test first. And they shouldn’t be allowed in bars unless they have a male chaperone. See, I’m a moderate on women’s rights! Some people think women should be banned from voting and drinking!”

    Annoying, isn’t it? And stupid. Like the anti-legalized abortion position generally.

    (edited for clarity)(and typos)

  6. I thought this out over the weekend, and I am pro-choice. I still believe neither side is 100% correct in their positions or statements, but pro-choice definitely is more correct in the debate and the proper stance to take- women should have the right to decide. However, I think pro-choicers should take the high road and not respond in kind to criticisms from the extremists on the other side, ignore them (ex. Obama v. tea partiers). Refute their arguments with facts, don’t instigate by calling them wackjobs or stating fetuses less than 12 weeks are “globs.” This is an emotional issue, don’t raise these emotions higher.

  7. Okay, I’ve been watching this discussion from the sidelines for long enough – it’s time to jump in!

    A nony mous, I can tell that this is weighing on you, and I can appreciate how the suggestion that your kids, at any stage of their development, were merely a “glob of cells” might cause some offence. But, frankly, it’s beside the point. That regrettable choice of words was meant to emphasize that the rights of a woman should always trump those of the so-called ‘unborn’. What you or I would personally choose to do is, again, irrelevant. Personal philosophy aside, this is a matter of public health which is of paramount importance. Access to safe and legal abortion is something we, as a society, owe to all women.

    As for your suggestion that pro-choicers should simply “ignore the extremists” – if only they’d go away if just we stopped paying attention to them. The truth is that the ‘extremists’ have found plenty of political ground, not only in the US, where those Tea Partiers you seem content to dismiss as harmless basically just held up the federal budget and threatened to cause that government to actually shut down, but also here in Canada. I take it you’re familiar with the Conservative Party? There are religious fundamentalists galore in Harper’s base, and they’ll likely help to vote his party in again. You think extremists should be ignored? I think history provides plenty of examples of the havoc they’ve wreaked and just how far they can take things.

    The ‘extremists’ you describe are well represented in this country and they should be challenged every time they rear their heads.

Comments are closed.