The Abattoir.


Once upon a time, I had another blog called Perry Street Palace™. It was (and still is imho) a wonderful place, with its own zoo, an extensive library, and of course a bar. But perhaps its most ambitious operation was The Abattoir.

The Abattoir has been sorely neglected since I joined FtB, and definitely needed some updating. Thus I am proud to announce the Grand Reopening of The Abattoir, in its sparkling new location, Freethought Blogs!

__________

Welcome to the Abattoir!

Black & white photo of equipment and staff at a U.S. Army medical facility circa WWI.

Here, we perform extractions of lifesaving organs–whether people consent to them or not!

Don’t worry! The Abattoir does not harvest organs from just anyone, willy-nilly. That would be morally reprehensible, barbaric, and inhumane. You see, all of our involuntary organ donors meet one, and only one, very specific criteria: they would eagerly and happily force other people to donate lifesaving organs  without the donor’s consent. And these donors do so with absolutely no regard for the harm this may cause, whether physically, psychologically or financially. Since all of The Abattoir’s donors feel so very strongly about this particular principle, it is only just and fair that they live by it!

There is no question that our mission will save untold thousands of human lives. In the United States alone, over 6,000 children, women and men die every year waiting in vain for a lifesaving organ transplant. As of this writing there are 106,025 people, from all demographics, on the nation’s transplant waiting lists.

Well friends, these numbers are about to change—and rapidly. No American should die for lack of a donor organ when there are so many people so passionate about forcing other people to donate their organs involuntarily. Why, the sheer numbers of politicians, judges and clergy who meet our criteria will put a hefty dent in these tragic statistics in short order.

Risks to the donor

It is true that organ extraction does involve some risks to the donor, just as any other major medical procedure does. And risks to donors will vary, depending upon which organs are harvested.

General risks to every involuntary donor include: pain, infection at the incision site(s), incisional hernia, pneumonia, blood clots, blood loss, the potential need for blood transfusion, medication side effects, abdominal hernia, and of course death. Potential psychological effects include feeling sad, anxious, angry, or resentful after surgery. Treatment for anxiety and depression can be lengthy, costly, and may include the use of medications which also have risks and unpleasant side effects.

Liver donors may also experience bile leakage, digestive tract blockage, narrowing of bowel duct, blockage or narrowing of the portal vein, pulmonary embolism, abdominal bleeding, inflammation of the pancreas, intestinal ulcers, kidney failure, ruptured bowel, and fluid on the lungs.

Kidney donors may also be subject to increased blood pressure, and kidney failure (of the remaining kidney).

But none of our donors could possibly object to any of that. Rest assured that we make every effort to mitigate adverse outcomes, and our surgical suites are state-of-the-art. It’s not like we’re performing illegal abortions here, people!

Black & white photo of equipment and staff at a U.S. Army medical facility circa WWI.

Extraction team in one of our many state-of-the-art surgical suites.

In light of these serious risks, we at the Abattoir would like to state that our donors’ right to informed consent is absolute. We really would like to state that! And the informed part is (mostly) true. The consent part? Well, not so much. After all, our donors are openly hostile to the very notion of consent when it comes to the risks of serious harm to other people whose organs are being involuntarily donated, so we need not trouble ourselves with anything as trivial as obtaining permission. Pffft.

So in most cases, our donors will be informed of aaaallll the risks to their physical and mental health that organ donations pose. To that end, we may, at our sole discretion, choose to inform them via any of various methods, including but not limited to: public harassment, confrontation with graphic images depicting organ removal surgeries, yelling the risks to donors through loud bullhorns (along with some atheist indoctrination, for good measure!), and traumatic shaming and stigmatizing in response to any resistance or refusal to comply with the critical lifesaving mission of The Abattoir.

In some cases, however, we may instead choose to blatantly lie to our donors about the actual dangers of organ harvesting, for example by falsely claiming that organ donation carries an increased risk of various cancers. We may also purposefully deceive donors about whether or not The Abattoir is licensed as a medical facility at all, or indeed has any medically trained personnel on staff whatsoever!

abattoir3Donor Ward No. 27b\6.

Because anesthesia may impair the functioning of a donor organ, it is used only in the rarest of cases. If donors are found to be circumventing this policy by using narcotics or any other organ-damaging substance, and the subsequent organ transplant is ultimately unsuccessful, donors will be subject to prosecution for murder and incarceration for life.

Finally, to satisfy ourselves that each donor is really and truly informed, he or she must undergo a transvaginal (or trans-anal/rectal) ultrasound, for the sole purpose of viewing and/or having described for them the very organ from which they will soon be involuntarily parted!

Now that is informed, motherfuckers.

“Inconvenience” donations

Certain candidates may be eligible to participate unwillingly in our Inconvenience Donation Program™. This protocol is applied exclusively to donors who claim that other peoples’ unwillingness to donate lifesaving organs is only because they wish to avoid a temporary and trivial “inconvenience.” While we expect to expand the scope of the program as medical technology advances, we are presently focused on causing donors such minor inconveniences as harvesting skin grafts for burn victims, and corneas for the blind. Temporary pain, no matter how excruciating, permanent scarring, or the loss of stereo vision and depth perception are exactly the kinds of inconvenient consequences for their actions and fervently held beliefs that donors should expect.

Priority donors

Due to the horrific legacies of racism, patriarchy, and unbridled capitalism in healthcare falling disproportionately on women and people of color, priority for involuntary organ donation at The Abattoir will naturally fall disproportionately on white men.

Black & white photo of patients and nurse at a U.S. Army medical facility circa WWI.Post-op recovery room.

Financing

Readers may understandably be concerned about the enormous costs associated with running such a program. Capturing, restraining, monitoring and locking up a single involuntary donor can quickly run into tens of thousands of dollars.

Don’t worry about it! Until we secure the generous taxpayer financing for which we are so obviously deserving, our involuntary donors are held personally responsible for all fees and costs. That’s just taking “personal responsibility” for requiring that other people are not only involuntarily organ donors, but are also stuck with the massive bills.

__________

ORGAN DONORS
presently residing in the Abattoir

  • Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justices. (qualifying criteria: leaked draft opinion overturning Roe and Casey: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”)
  • The Republican Party in the United States. (qualifying criteria: current national platform.)
  • The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 447 active and retired bishops. (qualifying criteria: “Abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being, is always gravely immoral”…”life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception.”)
  • Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist author.
    (qualifying criteria: claims to be “pro-choice precisely because (to the extent that) the fetus has no brain to be conscious with,” and thus it would be “murder most foul” to abort some hypothetical fetus that can write poetry. Yep: a pregnant person should be forced to donate organs to a poet-fetus.)
  • Jackie DeAngelisFox Business personality. (qualifying criteria: “[P]eople have the right to leave. They can go live somewhere else where it’s more of a free-for-all, and they can do whatever they want.”)
  • Bernie Finn, Victoria, Australian “Liberal” MP. (qualifying criteria: commenting on unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape, “Babies should not be killed for the crime of his or her parent.”)
  • Tony Abbott, former prime minister of Australia. (qualifying criteria: calling abortion decriminalization law “effectively infanticide on demand.”)
  • Susan DeLemus, New Hampshire state Rep. (qualifying criteria: had a safe and legal abortion, and now yells “Murderers!” at abortion rights protesters; advocate for “legislation that would give a biological father the right to block a woman’s abortion in court.”)

__________

HELP WANTED

We are presently seeking volunteers to nominate candidates for involuntary organ donation. (We can hardly keep up!) All that is required is a comment providing the name of a person (or group if all members qualify), and a link citation to evidence of their qualifying criteria. Remember, people are dying every day for lack of available donor organs.

Happy hunting!

__________

Comments

  1. L.Long says

    ALL eviljellicals…especially the ones who declare abortions as evil and against some fictional gawd’s law while getting an abortion for their mistress.

  2. says

    The Abattoir thanks you for your involuntary organ donor candidate suggestions!

    chigau: No Trumps yet, but perhaps some or all (and Pence!) should be? Pence resided in our former location, for his votes in the House and his 100% rating from the National Right to Life [sic] Committee and 0% rating from NARAL, based on his his votes as a Rep. in Congress. I suppose that’s enough, though I’d like a more recent citation. Care to volunteer to find me a good link? Same for Trump(s)?

    L.Long: #notalleviljellicals. If you’d like us to harvest the organs of specific activists, leaders and clergy from this community, all I need is a name and a link!

  3. lochaber says

    I suspect Intransitive @4 was referencing Gregg Abbott, the governor of TX.

    I think Intransitive often makes “puns”(? probably not quite the right term, but I’m exhausted, sorry…) out of politicians/pundits/etc. names.

    Apologies in advance if I got any of this wrong, like I said, I’m exhausted…

  4. ardipithecus says

    Rupert Murdock. The Sacklers. I reckon one could make a case for most billionaires.

    The Canadian government has already started working on whatever machinations are needed to allow Americans seeking abortions to get them in Canada.

  5. says

    Cryp Dyke: Thanks for the donor and the link! She is now resting uncomfortably as we prepare to extract a kidney without anesthesia. YAY! SAVING LIVES! 🎉

    I just loooooooove this defense of the indefensible, i.e. that “the right to abortion should be left up to states to decide.” Gawdferbid we leave it up to pregnant people themselves in those states.

    The scariest thing at your link was this:

    Additionally, anti-abortion activists are already preparing for their next move: a nationwide ban if Republicans gain control of Congress.

    And they’ll do it. A.S.A.P.

  6. says

    Breaking News: THE ABATTOIR HAS NOW GONE INTERNATIONAL!

    Thanks to nominees and links from commenters gijoel and mathscatherine, we are now harvesting organs from involuntary donors in Australia!

    Very exciting.

  7. dianne says

    I suggest that those who are “just asking questions” about abortion, “not opposed to abortion BUT…” or who complain that the analogy is not perfectly correct in every detail be harvested for blood and bone marrow. Not all of it, of course, just some. Any that shrug and say, “fair” are done. Any that object on the grounds that you’re doing something to their bodies against their will and that’s horrible (despite their willingness to ask questions about the right of others to have bodily integrity), their lungs and kidneys are up for grabs.

  8. dianne says

    Personally, I find peripheral blood stem cell collection unnatural and besides it may carry a minute risk of leukemia*. I think they need to get their marrow removed the old fashioned way: 100 or so bone marrow aspirations.

    *There is, in fact, a theoretical risk that the medications used to stimulate stem cell proliferation may very, very slightly increase the risk of acute leukemia. The fact that the medication has been used on literally millions of people and the risk is still theoretical should tell you something about how large the risk, if it even exists, is. Don’t let it stop you from donating if you want to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *