Rat woman treated after 1,000 animals killedSaturday 13th January 2001
A laboratory researcher has been treated at hospital because she is devastated by the death of more than 1,000 rats.
Gwynneth Quick, who has been dubbed Rat Woman, kept the rats at her home near Cape Town because she couldn't stand the way they were being treated at work.
Authorities only found out about the rats when she locked herself out of her house and called police for help.
Police found rats running all over the house where they had destroyed most of the furniture and internal fittings. Only one room was reserved for human habitation.
Ms Quick, said to be an exceptionally intelligent woman with a number of university degrees, was treated in hospital after the house was fumigated and the rats killed.
She has now been readmitted for further treatment.
Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd
For now.
Woman who get abortions for reasons such as "their whole life being ahead of them" = heroic in the face of tough circumstances.
I looked up and down through this article to find any reasoning what-so-ever that leads the confused liberal who wrote this article to the above conclusion. After sorting through the heated (yet ploddingly typical) leftist hyperventilating on the topic, I can only find the following point to support the central assertion:
Women have always had abortions.
That's it.
After much bloviating, Chirstian bashing, and name calling, the reason it is a woman's choice and no one else's, according to the esteemed Mark Morford, is because they've always had them.
Mr. Morford doesn't even attempt to explore whether these abortions have "always" been the choice of the women having them. There are numerous examples of forced abortions extending through history. They even go on today.
It would seem odd that Mr. Morford says the reason something is a woman's choice is because it has always occurred - even sometimes when it has not been her choice. The reasoning here doesn't quite line up.
But of course that's not the worst problem with Mr. Morford's unusual thinking. It would be far worse if one agreed with him, and extended his reasoning to other arenas. Here are a few other things that have "always" happened: rape, murder, and theft. For some reason, despite these items being "always" with us, we don't find that a compelling reason to justify them. They've always been with us, they've always been wrong, and there's nothing contradictory about that statement.
We don't have a right to steal. We don't have a right to rape. We don't have a right to murder. And we don't have the right to abortion.
Study: Tell women about abortion-breast cancer link
Or perhaps Mr. Morford isn't really concerned about the facts, just in verbal bullying.
Once upon a time, men used to consider their women property, in the same way that women consider their fetuses property.
There's something to think about.
If abortion is so sad and tragic [No woman anywhere in the entire world who accidentally and/or tragically and/or violently and/or sadly became pregnant and did not intend to, wants to suffer this, ever. No woman, by way of either mistake or unsafe sex or bad condoms or neglected birth control or immaculate conception or rampant misinformation or overly aggressive ignorant males, ever wants this done to her. ], why are roughly 50 percent of abortions repeat abortions? If one instance of this heart-rending "choice" is so cataclysmic, why do women routinely have second, third, fourth, and fifth abortions? How many cataclysms does it take to awaken one's moral sensibilities?
Morford -- either through invincible ignorance or calculating disingenuousness -- gets the pro-life premise wrong, too. [It is not yours, not mine, not your God's, not Dubya's, not a lawyer's, not an old misogynist Republican senator's (hello, Sen. Brownback), not those who choose to interpret a barely formed fetus as a viable "life,". . .] No, it's a human life, one which every reputable scientist and doctor recognizes as uniquely human from the moment of conception.
The rest of this smarmy column is riddled with similarly, egregiously solipsistic "reasoning" [. . .some new legislation that would further limit what a woman can and can't do with her own body once she becomes pregnant.]. Mercifully, Morford's (and NARAL's and NOW's and Planned Parenthood's, et al.) kind of snotty, self-righteous exculpation continues its ineluctable journey to the barbarian fringe of ethical discourse.