Chickens, eggs and babies (in that order)
You have to hand it to the Australian Guardian. It’s created the perfect safe space, unencumbered by the oppressive nature of logic.
Take today’s edition. The eagle-eyed may have noticed this perfectly ironic set of stories:
First up we have Van Badham. She’s a slayer of ‘misogyny’, especially when it comes to such terrible things as protecting fertilised human eggs, colloquially known as babies. So she’s gone on a whine today:
“…only the ACT allows women to access safe, legal abortion-on-demand at any time.
Victoria and Tasmania both provide conditional services based on length of gestation; and South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory make it legal only with certain caveats. In New South Wales and Queensland, abortion remains in the criminal code.”
I guess she’s put all her proverbials in the ‘it’s-ethical-to-destroy-fertilised-eggs-at-any-time’ basket.
Meanwhile, only a couple of sentences away is Chas Newkey-Burden. He’s a non-misogynistic bloke who wouldn’t dream of scrambling eggs at all. And he’s sooking about the death and destruction of baby roosters before they hatch:
“Researchers within the industry are proposing a genetically modified approach under which female embryos are identified prior to hatching by making them fluoresce under UV light. This means the male chicks could be identified and crushed in their shells prior to hatching. For some people this is a step forward, but for many the proposal merely produces a new moral dilemma.”
Ahh, the good ol’ moral dilemma. Guardian columnists love to grapple with them, as long as they prioritise chickens over babies…