After-birth abortion: 
why should the baby live?


Alberto Giubilini, 
Department of Philosophy,
University of Milan
Centre for Human Bioethics,
Monash University, Melbourne

Francesca Minerva
Centre for Applied Philosophy
and Public Ethics, University of
Melbourne,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for
Practical Ethics, Oxford
University


ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do nothave anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showingthat (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Published Online First 23 February 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics
"An international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics"

Newsarticle- Daily Mail

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Let´s hope this is a clever hoax

- Browse all films in the Sexual Revolution series here

Article by the filmaker about the moral issues he had shooting the film

My fears for all Felicities
by Stephen Walker
I was uneasy the moment I set eyes on Max Hardcore. A small man, perhaps 5ft 6in, he was wearing his trademark yellow cowboy hat. I'd already been told about the hat. I knew he wore it in most of the thousand-plus porn films in which he'd starred. And I knew something about those films. What I didn't know was that the next few hours I'd spend with this man would present the biggest ethical challenge in my career as a documentary film-maker. It would also leave me with one of the most unforgettably unpleasant experiences I have ever had.

This is how it happened. I'd been asked to make a documentary about an English girl who was going to Los Angeles to be a porn star. Felicity, the girl in my film, had been invited by an agent called Richard to spend three weeks meeting producers and performing in films. Which is why I first met her at Los Angeles airport on a sultry November evening.

The thing about pornography is that everybody's reaction is instantly suspect. What people say in public and what they think in private are often very different things. A lot of the documentaries on porn I'd seen looked like thinly disguised attempts to pull in big ratings while paying lip-service to the idea that the business was morally repugnant. Would mine be any different? After all, if I'm being honest, I was genuinely curious to know what it felt like to be on a porn set. Would I be excited? Shocked? Bored? And I wasn't the only one. Most of my colleagues, not all of them male, were fascinated. Some were frankly envious, though they didn't say so in public.

My first experience of a porn set was, to say the least, unsettling. Richard had brought Felicity to watch a gang-bang movie. Ten men were having sex with one girl in a wrestling ring. The overwhelming impression was the stench: of bodies, of sweat, of various other excretions. It was a revolting spectacle, about as erotic as a butcher's shop. It was also, for obvious reasons, almost impossible to film. The best I could come up with was to concentrate on the litter of spent tissues on the floor. That, and the expression on Felicity's face, as she saw, for the first time, just what it was she'd got herself into.

But this was only the beginning. After a week, I'd seen just about everything. I felt sick. What do you do when a producer shows you snapshots of his wife and kids before filming a simulated rape scene? How do you cope when a director tells you he is running for mayor in his home town and then boasts that his movies make Belsen look like a picnic? The fact is, you don't. Trapped between your responsibilities as a professional film-maker and your sensibilities as a human being, you only hope that somewhere in your film there's a truth that needs to be told.

Despite her growing disillusionment with the business, Felicity's agent kept pushing her to do ever more extreme movies. More extreme meant more money, and Richard was out to make as much as possible. That's how we came to find ourselves one afternoon at Max Hardcore's house, high in the Hollywood hills.

The place was immediately disturbing. Perhaps it was the faint smell of antiseptic in the air, like a hospital. Or the three German Shepherds chained to the floor. Or maybe it was the wardrobe full of children's clothes. I felt extremely anxious. So did Felicity. The only person who seemed to take this in his stride was Richard. But then he'd seen it all before.

When Max Hardcore finally arrived, he took Felicity into his office for what she, and I, thought would simply be an interview. But it wasn't. Within seconds of their meeting, he pushed her over his desk, unzipped his flies, and began having sex with her. Felicity was obviously very scared. And yet I kept my camera running.

I still ask myself why. In retrospect, it's easy to find convenient justifications for acting as I did. After all, I was making a documentary about porn. I was recording its sordid reality. And reality has a strange way of becoming unreal, as if already pre-recorded, when looked at through a viewfinder. Since Felicity hadn't asked for help, should I have put the camera down and stopped things? I don't know. What I do know is I'm still not sure, months later, if I got it right.

read the rest here


Loading a bit slow the first 30 seconds, works fine afterwards.

The Kinsey Syndrome unfolds the work and influence of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, considered to be "the father of the sexual revolution." But did Kinsey liberate America from its prudish view of sex? Or help to unleash the horrors of our present society?

American History Films Presents, A Jude 3 Production
Written & Directed by: Christian J. Pinto
Associate Producers: Clark Aliano, Steve Aguilar
Executive Producers: Joseph M. Schimmel, Christian J. Pinto
Package Design: Robbie Destocki, Creative Image Design Group
Running Time: Approx 3 hours
(c) 2008. All rights reserved.
Consumer Release Date: December 2008
www.thekinseysyndrome.com

Interesting short documentary in which Norma McCorvey admits that Roe vs Wade was a fraud and tells the story of how the case has influenced her life

Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, never could have imagined the outcome of her deception: 4,000 abortions a day since 1973. Norma never had an abortion, but her Supreme Court case brought abortion on demand to America. Darkness and disillusionment plagued her life with baby parts, alcohol, drugs, and suicidal attempts. The power of prayer plus the loving actions of a little girl and others drove Norma from working in an abortion center into the arms of Jesus.

Joyce Zounis' choice of abortion, not once but seven times, nearly cost her life. Tormented by disbelief, she lived a nightmare of anger, guilt, and disconnection. She grieves not only for her seven children but also for the heritage of their children.

Once relegated to the margins of society, pornography has become one of the most visible and profitable sectors of the cultural industries in the United States. It is estimated that the pornography industry's annual revenue has reached $13 billion. At the same time, the content of pornography has become more aggressive, more overtly sexist and racist.
The film features the voices of consumers, critics, and pornography producers and performers. It is particularly revealing when male pornographers openly discuss their views about women and how men should relate to them, and when male and female porn users candidly discuss the role pornography has played in shaping their sexual imaginations and relationships. The film paints both a nuanced and complex portrait of how pleasure and pain, commerce and power, and liberty and responsibility are intertwined in the most intimate aspects of human relations.
At the same time, the film examines the unprecedented role that commercial pornography now occupies in U.S. popular culture. Going beyond the debate of liberal versus conservative so common in the culture, The Price of Pleasure provides a holistic understanding of pornography as it debunks common myths about the genre.
The film features interviews with scholars of mass media (Gail Dines and Robert Jensen), economics (Richard Wolff), and psychology (Dr. Ana Bridges); writers on pornography and popular culture (Ariel Levy and Pamela Paul); producers and performers from the pornography industry (John Stagliano, Joanna Angel and Ernest Greene); and a former stripper/porn performer-turned-author (Sarah Katherine Lewis).
Film Website

Directed and Produced by Miguel Picker and Chyng Sun
Co-Writer and Associate Producer: Robert Wosnitzer

ABORTION - THE SILENT SCREAM COMPLETE VERSION (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:

VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
www.amport.com

This has been performed as asked. This video is perfectly legal.

The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

Big Thank you to vladtepes for alerting me to the torturous human experimentation of Dr.John Money. And thanks to JaYnEsAyZ for uploading this documentary on David Reimer, a victim of the sexual revolution.

This film is so dense with the most sickening aspects of socialist revolutionary assault on natural human sexuality, that I don´t know where to begin.
To set the tone, I would like to quote the intro speak of the BBC version of the material contained in the above documentary (My emphasis):

This is the story of a boy whos penis was burned off. As a result David Reimer was raised as a girl, for the first 14 years of his life [...] It is also the story of the psychologist who treated him. A man with a radical theory about what makes us male and female, masculine and feminine.

"He is brilliant! I think John is a brilliant man. I think he is one of a handful of the most brilliant people I have ever met"

Together they helped form one of the most famous theories of modern psychology: That a boy, any boy could be raised as a girl but the experiment went terribly wrong

"I was told I was a girl. I didn´t like dressing like a girl. I didn´t like behaving like a girl. I didn´t like acting like a girl. I am not a professor or anything, but you don´t wake up one morning deciding you are a boy or a girl... you just know"

In the end, the scientist reputation would be shattered, and David Reimer and his twin brother would die tragically. - Tonight Horizon tells a cautionary tale about how science in a bid to proove a beautiful theory, can at times ignore the ugly facts, at dreadful human costs"

Lets try and spell out the actual events behind this horrifying piece of BBC mental massage:
The penis of one of two twin baby boys is mutilated beyond repair during circumcision, presumeably by accident. A psychologist sees a potential human guinney pig for his perverted and unsubstantiated theories about gender being nothing but a cultural phenomena and goes to work in an all out psychological Dr. Mengele style operation. The poor innocent boy is forced to act and look like a girl, has long sessions with the doctor, who tries to convince him of the very same theory in increasingly desperate attempts to make him deliver on his ideologically motivated conclusions. He even makes the two twin brothers engage in sexual activity with him as "observer" and "coach" in what must have been a novelty even within the sick world of the Kinsey institute. 

But what was the premise of Dr. Moneys whole psychological inferno sold off as "brilliant and beautiful" treatment" above? The unshakeable premise of this experimentum crucis of sexual liberation was: "They can never know the truth".

Eventually they were told and after learning about the cruel setup behind their ordeal, the twins understandably sank into unescapeabel  sadness and  sheer madness and ended up taking their own lives.

Dr. Money however, insisted that the experiment was a huge success, and to this day all the crap taught in "gender studies departments" feed off and advocate the nightmare that was forced upon David Reimer and his brother.
Leftist intellectuals has always had only two objectives in mind:
- Suggest that the natural is really cultural
- Make the counter-intuitive seem intuitive

And I would like to urge all readers to keep David Reimers story in mind, whenever they need to picture, what the world is like if leftist theories are taken litterally.

Highly Recommended!

Thanks to Hermitcleric for pointing my attention to this truely disturbing Channel 4 documentary from 1998 on the man who sparked the sexual revolution

It investigates the origin of the data on sexuality in children presented in Kinseys two bestsellers Sexuality in the Human Male" and "Sexuality in the Human Female." and finds that Kinsey and his mentor Robert Latour Dickinson not only based their assumptions on testimony from predatory paedophiles but  also  trained and equipped the most obsessive ones, in order for them to time and note their abusive child molestations in a scientific manner. Add to this the smirking letters, praising child abusers for their detailed accounts of their assaults on children, in some cases no more than 2 months old. Some of the sadist assaults commited by Kinseys "fieldworkers" later resulted in the death of infants.
Kinsey advocated sexual activities between the more "experienced" parent and their young children in order to help them achieve orgasms earlier in life, than would otherwise have been the case, and seem to hold to the idea that prohibiting this kind of intercourse is only due to moralising and cultural "conventions", which are at best forgotten. In other words Kinsey views culture as a destructive force obstructing the pursuit of pleasure and is blind to the fact that the protection of children from sexual activity is based on a deeper understanding of "consent" than Kinsey is able to study, and should actually be viewed as a cultural achievement. But in Kinseys world "orgasm" seem to be construed as "consent". A notion which is completely absurd when applied to the tables in his book elaborating on the masturbation of babies.
The quotes from Kinsey on this issue, is countered by the testimony of Esther White whose father collected some of the data published in Kinseys books. Equipped with a clock and notebook from the Kinsey institute he performed sadist incestious assaults on Esther and shipped back his findings. Esther has no doubt that the interest of the institute in the deviant sexuality of her father encouraged him further, and made him forget the moral implications of his activity. She recalls with great pain the massive abuse and finds it immoral that the Kinsey Institute use this data in order to "normalise" this kind of activity.

The reaction of the Kinsey Institute to these findings is even more alarming. While hiding behind the mask of "Medical Science" they refuse to pursue Esthers plea of a copy of her own records, at times appealing to anonymity at other to the "uncatalogued" and disorganised state of their archive. Both FBI and CIA have tried to obtain the "diaries" of the many child molesters contained in the archive, but have been met with the threat of complete destruction of all records.
- Seems like the knowledge of  The Sexuality in Humans, is to be administered by the institute without critical scrutiny.

Highly Recommended!

International Socialism always sought to expand its territory by pitting every conceivable faction of the existing culture against eachother, thus paving the way for a revolution through eruption of civil war.
It was to be the employer against the employee, man against woman, gay against straight, black against white, students against professors, pupils against teachers, young against the old. And when fighting finally broke out, the communist faction - who knew all along - used to come out victorious.
A much overlooked phenomena in this tactic is the deliberate destruction of the traditional culture and artforms present in the host society, and how this has been used in the efforts to aid the advent of the civil war usually preceding the actual "Revolution".
The strategic consequenses of nuclear weapons however, neccesitated a general weakening of the target society in order to ensure the operations wouldn´t backfire. Kremlin was terrified of how the Americans settled the war with japan, and must have preferred a strategy of "softening up" the enemy through all kinds of misinformation drugs and the spread of hedonism as a prelude to revolt in order to benefit russian homeland security.You wanted the your enemy frustrated, depatriotized, confused, distracted and occupied with useless things, such as sex and intellectual mazes bordering on verbal masturbation.
The communists knew how important it was to infiltrate artists and intellectuals in order to create the wanted effects on the host culture, and gained much success by placing agitative socialist-minded intellectuals in the pubs of the main cities, preying on artists under the influence of alcohol and other drugs weakening their strenght of mind. As soon as an artist or intellectual was deemed succesfully convinced by socialist revolutionary ideas, he would suddenly be published or granted exibitions at important galleries and get rave reviews by socialist critics, well seated in leading newspapers - always to the surprise of an appalled but curious bourgeoisie.
Amazing that hardly anyone has looked for an explanation as to why 20th century art took the form of "the Shock of the New", "provocation" and "avant-garde" - a french word best translated by the term "progressivism". The answer seems rather obvious if one is aware of the agendas of the enemies of the open society
These agitators were especially succesful in Paris already from the 30s and onward and fused very early with french hedonist existentialism,  later morphing into some of the most hilarious kinds of misinformation campaigns parading as "high-brow" philosophy, by the likes of Derrida, Lacan and Foucault.

In order to illustrate this point I have chosen two works of art - one is made by the highly praised Hermann Nitsch often labelled as one of the founders of modern "performance art", and a leading figure in Viennese Actionism - of course obligatory in any art-school curriculum. It  is supposed to depict how Jesus came into flesh - hence the saying title "Maria Conception - Orgia Mistério"

The second clip is an excerpt of Tarkovskijs film Andrei Rublev. In which the painter contemplates the role of Judas and the omnipotence of christ.

Both are from 1969, the first one is made by socialists in capitalist Austria - a center of modern economic theory and real philosophy in the tradition of geniouses such as Franz Brentano and Ludwig von Mises - an obvious target of "active measures".
The film illustrates quite well how subversive socialism uses behaviourist techniques known from Pavlovs later studies of expermentally induced neurosis. In his last years Pavlov worked intensely on this subject and found out that by creating conflicts between conditioned and unconditioned responses, and the sudden swapping of punishment and reward he could actually make dogs sink into deep depressions or madness. Although Hermann Nitsch probably never thought about this, it was excactly what lied beneath the surface of the revolutionary mindset.
The below film uses sex, lust and nudity generating unconditioned responses of excitement and arousal, while at the same time applying stimuli and symbolisms from the christian faith, generating conditioned responses which are in conflict with the hedonist and sadist aspects of the experience. This is then all garnered with the use of intestinesand  blood to disgust the viewer, leaving him unable to come to terms with his own feelings. For more on this see prior post on Beyond Torture and The Anti-Humans. and the Genocide of Souls

The second clip is made in "after the revolution" by Andrei Tarkovsky and shows the icon painter Andrei Rublev in deep meditation on the role of Judas and the omnipotense of Christ.
It contains a wholly different approach to history and culture, begging the question: Why this discrepancy between socialist art at home and abroad, if not a deliberate attempt to destroy the host culture and replace it with confused revolt and sheer madness?
Is the "Orgia" of the 60s and 70s really that "Mistério"?

Upon watching these early socialist blasphemous films, the hypocrisy of the new-found "religious sensitivity" of the left becomes so obvious, that it is impossible to attribute to their stupidity. They are surely following a revolutionary agenda, which demands the fall of capitalism. And apparently they will go to any lengths in order to secure the presence of their islamic mercenaries, and this is the true reason they don´t mind seeming so utterly hipocritical. Luckily, much like the afghan heroin producers, the left has become hooked on the poisonous hedonism originally intended for the bourgouirsie, and will be absolutely worthless when push comes to shove, which should make our job somewhat easier. At times I even ponder some higher justice, behind the fact that the radical muslims are in fact ridding us of the vermin left at an incredible speed.

Socialist "Art" dealing with christianity in Bourgeois Society 1969
Hermann Nitsch: Maria Conception - Orgia Mistério - WARNING - OBSCENE!



Socialist Art dealing with Christianity in Socialist Russia 1969
Andrei Rublev

DARK SIDE OF PORN: SEARCH FOR ANIMAL FARM 1 OF 3
envoyé par Top-Notch112. - Les dernières bandes annonces en ligne.

Part 2

DARK SIDE OF PORN: SEARCH FOR ANIMAL FARM 2 OF 3
envoyé par Top-Notch112. - Court métrage, documentaire et bande annonce.

Part 3

DARK SIDE OF PORN: SEARCH FOR ANIMAL FARM 3 OF 3
envoyé par Top-Notch112. - Regardez plus de films, séries et bandes annonces.

This is the first film in a series of documentaries I will be posting on the sexual revolution. I have posted a couple of films on this already, but have now decided to expand on the topic although it without a doubt will take us all to a deep dark place of socialist horrors - disguised as as do-good "idealism".
Very few people realise that the beginnings of the sexual revolution was in fact a socialist engineered attack on the morality of the free world. This is surprising because, to be honest it does not take a genious to figure out, what constant stories of rampant partying, infidelity and group sex orgies at home does to a soldier´s fighting spirit. It would therefore be bordering on stupidity NOT to assume that the evil empire would try to promote widespread hedonism in enemy lands, in order to weaken the moral of the troops. After all, apart from general confusion and distraction, the really Grand Prix of military psychology is the stimulation of a fear in the soldiers mind, that wife or fiancee is betraying him at home, while he is out there risking his life for God and Country, Freedom and Democracy.
A vital part of this socialist scheme was of course the drugs and partying, but the need to do away with the obscenity laws was also extremely important for the succesful promotion of hedonism. Like so many other socialist schemes this was best done through "supreme" courts, surprisingly incapabel of grasping the straight forward difference between obscene speech and expression as opposed to photographic recordings of obscene behaviour . To state the obvious: unlike photographic recordings of real events, speech and artistic expression through painting or sculpturing does not require the actual enaction of the events. Painting or talking about young girls engaged in bestiality, does not hurt any young girls or animals, whereas paying young girls for performing bestiality in front of a camera usually does.
This fundamental difference between doing things and expressing things, was obviously too hard to grasp for the supreme justices and all of a sudden photography and movies were to be treated as "speech" protected by the constitution. I often challenge people who defend this nonsense, by asking them to give me some examples of the most marvelous and enlightening speech-acts emanating from the millions of porn movies produced ever since... Is it the "Ah!" or is it the "Oh!"?

The above film deals with the early danish porn film entitled "Summersday", shot by a famous danish porn "pioneer" called Ole Ege. It starred Bodil Joensen having sex with the aniamals at her farm, and soon adopted the much more suiting title "Animal Farm". The film won 1. Prize at the very first "Wet Dreams Festival" shortly after its release in Holland. This festival was an a huge international "succes" which generated an immense amount of controversy and interest, and was ultimately the real reason Animal Farm came to be so widely distributed.

The jury consisted of Germaine Greer, a selfdescribed anarchist Communist
Richard Neville (Oz Magazine a popular active measures mix-genre "humor/revolt/obscenity", aiming at the unsuspecting youth. Also convicted numerous times for obscenity and became famous because he had "the longest obscenity trial, ever". Somehow he always got away through appeals

Celebrity Al Goldstein who hardly needs any introduction was also in the jury, along with other subversives.

They of course praised the film for its "beautiful and unprejudiced display of polymorpheus libido"...

I have included a short description of Bodil Joensens life after she became a postergirl for sexual "liberation"

"By the early 70s she had managed to achieve her goal of living on her own farm, along with her companion or partner[3] Knud Andersen and her daughter (born circa 1972[4]), which she helped finance by allowing sex tourists to visit and make private films with her animals.

Friends comment about that time[1] that she was "easily exploited by almost anyone with a camera" and that the visitors "just wanted pornography, they didn't care about knowing her". Neighbours, once friendly, turned dark and hostile, forced her to move repeatedly. As the Danish adult industry began looking to other content, Bodil failed to make the transition from porn to other movies, and her financial stability and life began to fall apart. After 1972[citation needed], she experienced a sharp deterioration, undergoing very obvious physical and psychological changes, including depression, first working as a "live show" and "sexual roleplay" girl. By 1980, with little remaining means of income and spiralling debt, the only work she was able to retain was a hectic routine of small scale live shows most evenings. Tajiri commented, sadly, that "Accepting the 'Grand Prix' at the first Wet Dream Film Festival was the worst mistake we made with our film, but we were too flattered by the response at the time to realize it."[2]

Bodil commented in a 1980 interview:
“ Things went completely out of hand when 'Spot' died. I started taking sedatives. But when someone referred to them as 'loony-smarties' I threw them in the fireplace. Instead I started drinking and eating excessively. I gained 30 kilos. Doesn't look well on something that was going downhill anyway. 'Spot' was a real german shepherd that I got from an animals hospital 10 years ago. She had been beaten. She never became anything but a little, weak dog. I've never been able to talk to other girls. I've always been with men. 'Spot' was my female friend. She understood what I said. Was happy when I was happy. Was sad when I was. When we were alone in the house without light and heat we went to bed together. Shared a biscuit. And then we talked, until we fell asleep. 'Spot' is the only living creature that has loved me for being just me. She didn't expect to get anything back. She soothed me when I was ill. I've experienced a lot with 'Lassie', and like him a lot. But it'll never be the same as with 'Spot'. Lassie has been unfaithful to me. He's an every-girls-dog. 'Spot' was mine. Completely mine. That's why I had such a shock when she died. And started drinking, and eating myself fat in no time. I live with my man for 10 years and my eight year old daughter. Still I feel like the loneliest human being now that 'Spot' is dead. In those days I earned easy money in a tough line of work. I fell and fell. 'When will I reach the bottom?' I often ask myself these days. ”

Her life falling apart, she became dependent on alcohol, and progressively less able to care for her animals. In 1981, following a change in Denmark's laws, she was raided for "sickening" animal neglect,[6] and went to prison for 30 days. Not one of her animals ultimately survived, and Bodil herself did not recover from seeing them euthanised. With little left, she turned to street prostitution to support herself, her partner (an alcoholic himself) and daughter, although friends comment[1] that even then, she did not want to be with people this way – all she wanted was her animals, as it once had been. Resorting to exchanging any sexual favour for alcohol and tranquillisers, she stated in her final interview that "in my position it is hard to turn down anything, no matter how disgusting... for me, staying alive in the hooking business is hell"

Link:

Short documenatry on the scandal surrounding the Kinsey institute. Esther white, a victim of childmolestation by her own father and grandfather, who took "scientific" notes during the abuse, and later shipped it back to Kinsey.

Review from scribd by one of the interviewed participants

Demographic Winter Wonderland
thanks to vladtepes