Friday, 13 November 2009

BIG Opinions from a BIG Idiot (#1)


When we turn teenagers, we’re expected to form opinions and stances upon the BIG issues – i.e. what politicians are paid to deal with – that we retain for our lives. Trouble is, I spent my teenage period ignoring BIG issues, maintaining a stubborn insouciance toward things that had nothing to do with me getting laid.

So, as I approach the one-third mark of existence, it’s time to form BIG opinions. Though, seeing as I don’t want to get involved in actual grown-up debates and end up discussing things with men in suits – feigning interest while I consume a thin glass of Merlot – I’m going strange, fascist, and evil.

Issue 1: Abortion!

My opinion is this: abortions are granted or denied after a series of psychological evaluations on the abortionee. Basically, the potential parents are assessed, prodded, poked and bothered, then are either deemed fit for purpose or potentially useless. Abortions are also to be made obligatory under the following conditions:

– If someone is unable to financially support, love, or take an interest in their accidental spawn. No point raising a potential bus driver!

– If the father and mother are between 12-24. You can’t raise a child when your main concerns are ipods and dildos.
– If the father and mother are unable to spell the word ‘instrumental’ then no child is allowed.
– If the father or mother is a postmodern writer, then the child will turn into a haggard sump working at Burger King. So no child allowed.
– If the father has forced the mother into getting an abortion, he is to have his genitals removed with clamps and a forklift truck.

Other technicalities: aborted foeti will be turned into a delicious pie, to be consumed by those who napalm clinics or slaughter doctors to put across their dogmatic pro-life views.

Those with the surname Jones or Smith are to undergo a name change before having a child, otherwise abortion is compulsory.

Abortionees are to be given a commemorative plaque stating: CONGRATULATIONS ON NOT REPRODUCING! Upon leaving the clinic, they are to be given a goodie bag including a leaflet on all the things they can now do, such as form a cult, write a postmodern novel about a writer writing a postmodern novel, and get a kitten (adorable picture above).

Next time: the Death Penalty.

7 comments:

  1. I've said it before and it bears saying again:-

    I despise the ninja nutters that get all hot and bothered about pro-life when it comes to abortion yet never get off their fat arses to aid those already born and suffering hell.

    Foeti are dream material, you can call them wondrous and God's gift etc without the fear of them doing something to disapoint you.

    Stand on a feel good pedestal/moral high ground demandng that they be saved, so you can later demand the death penalty for them when they grow up and strangely turn nasty.

    What if the myth were true (it ain't, but say it was) - that there is a psycho/murderer/criminal gene and it could be detected in the womb? That would cause quite a moral shiver for the pro-lifers eh?

    I suppose many would be suddenly converted to nurture over nature and deny the gene - yet wouldn't bomb government offices demanding funds for better nurture and parent education.
    God, in his bible, didn't demand funding for those things so they couldn''t claim to be doing His work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, as per your profile, I certainly found this blog to be "excruciatingly offensive", on several levels(one of them being that my surname is 'Smith').

    But, I will take it in the spirit that it was meant, and not get ratty about it.

    I actually think that abortion is sometimes necessary, and hate it when people get in your face about it and start spouting things like 'murder' at you. Abortion in general is a great big grey spot that lies between black and white. *nods firmly*

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike: Whoops. I've invoked debate.

    My own "serious" stance on the issue is obviously that it's the abortionee's issue whether they want to go through with it or not. Glorious free will. And a gloriously liberal perspective.

    Gene detection would certainly shake up the pro-lifers, especially if they found a Noel Edmunds lookalike gene.

    Tundie: Noooo! You're the one with the surname Smith! I suspected someone who might might read this would have that surname, but I wasn't too sure.

    I'm glad you didn't get ratty: my sense of humour when dealing with prickly issues doesn't chime with most people. Or anyone. This was a silly piece of gloop. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Invoking debate is nothing to ashamed of :)

    As to 'Smith', well, in all probability, the laws of averages means that you're probably going to get more than one 'Smith' reading this. I used to be quite unusual, what with being a 'Jeffery', but now I've joined the 'Smith' ranks I'm a little more common.

    And a 'Noel Edmonds lookalike gene'? *dies* Never let that be someing that we have to worry about, please, or we're all doomed. *shudders*

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jeffery is indeed an unusual surname. I would be too tempted to name my son Geoffrey under those circumstances. Like the father of Dave Davies or Neville Neville.

    Provided there are no tendencies towards carefully topiarised squirrel beards in our families, we shall escape the Noel gene!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have the flu, am highly medicated, so unable to comment. OK, hehehehe.

    ReplyDelete