Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 18, July 26, 1976.

Abortion — — The Other Side

page 9

Abortion

The Other Side

I am a registered medical practitioner, I hold the appointment of Professor in Perinatal Psysiology in the Postgraduate School of Obstetrics and (gynaecology, University of Auckland, and I am a member of the consultant staff of National Women's Hospital, Auckland. My qualifications, other appointments, and publications, are set forth in my curriculum vitae and in my list of publications.

For the past nineteen years my main field of research and clinical practice has been the care of unborn children. Initially this work established accurate diagnostic tests by which the condition of the unborn Rh baby could be assessed. In 1963 I developed a technique for the transfusion of blood to the baby in utero. Phis work demonstrated conclusively that the unborn child, like any other person, could be ill, and could have his disease diagnosed, his condition assessed, and his malady successfully treated The diagnosis and therapy of each of these babies before birth is as precise and specific as the continuing care and attention they receive after birth.

Although this early work was concerned primarily with the problems of the Rh baby before birth, the experience gained, and the techniques developed, are now being exploited for the diagnosis and management of an ever-widening range of disorders in unborn children. This situation highlights the fact that, in modern antenatal care, we are concerned with the welfare of two patients: the mother and the child.

In a number of genetic and biochemical problems, definite diagnosis can be established as early as the 14th week, and, in the Rh baby, therapy has been undertaken as early as the 18th week of intrauterine life. With advances in technology these limits are being moved back earlier in pregnancy. The division of intrauterine life into segments (zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. is a semantic phenomenon, and is in no way supported by biological or medical fact. We are caring for the same child throughout pregnancy, before as well as after birth.

Because of the facts uncovered by my research, as a doctor I have no alternative but to regard the unborn child as my patient, and to protect and respect his life as I would the life of any other patient. In my opinion, therefore, abortion is abhorrent, and represents a policy which would be regarded as immoral and criminal with a patient in any other age group. From clinical experience I am convinced that unborn children are individuals and human beings, who should have legal protection, and who are capable of receiving and responding to medical care.

For that reason I was disturbed by developments oversea in favour of liberal abortion policies. The argument, as I understood them, seemed to concentrate on the wishes of the mother rather than an accurate and factual evaluation of what is involved in an abortion. In particular it seemed to me that the facts relating to the unborn child were being distorted (whether deliberately or through ignorance I did not know so as to give the public the impression that the fetus, particularly in the first 12 weeks, could hardly be treated as a "child". It appeared to me that the New Zealand public could be vulnerable to propaganda of this kind, and as a counter-measure I was glad to be able to assist with the formation of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child.

Photo of a doctor and Professor of Perinatal Physiology at the University of Auckland

As any high school biology text-book will tell us, life begins at conception and ends at death. In between, lite does not develop it is simply there.

What does develop is the morphological structure, the earthly home of life, the physiological performance, of that structure, behavioural traits and personality. And, as we increasingly expand into a community of like individuals, we can speak of development of social responsibilities, of ethical awareness and legal status.

Unfortunately, this expansion of concept is accompanied by a deterioration in fact and specificty. Any modern textbook of embryology will accurately recount the earliest stages of morphogenesis of the human body. A little behind but catching up are accounts of the physiological performance and behaviour of the embryo and fetus.

In other words, when dealing with observation and sensory data there is good agreement. But, as we expand into social, speculation and value judgments successively replace fact and understanding; dispute and disagreement replace unanimity.

Instead of steady advances in knowledge and practice, we find the earliest days of human life being tossed about in the market-place, the Courts and the hustings, the victim of social policies hair-raisingly erractic and increasingly alarming.

Our generation is the first ever to have a reasonably complete picture of the development of the human from conception. In the 1930s the liberation of a human egg from the ovary was first observed. In 1944, through a microscope, was seen as the union of the human sperm and the ovum. In the 1950s the events of the first six days [unclear: first steps in a] journey.

In the 1960s three further advances occurred. First as I have said, the direct diagnosis and treatment in a baby before birth became a reality. Secondly, the physical environment and physiological behaviour of the fetus became accessible to study. Thirdly the genetic code was cracked, the alphabet established in which is spelled out the instructions which guarantee that every human is unique and different from every human than ever was or ever will be.

These 40 years of discovery put an end to centuries of guesswork and controversy - of ideas of generation, animation, ensoulment, en capsulation. For a generation which reputedly prefers scientific fact to barren philosophy, we might have thought that this new information would engender a new respect for the welfare and appreciation of the importance of intrauterine life.

Instead, around the world we find a systematic campaign clamouring for the destruction of the embryo and fetus as a cure-all for every social and personal problem. 1 for one find it a bitter irony that just when the embryo and fetus finally arrives on the medical scene there should be such sustained pressure to make him - or her - a social nonentity.

In this Orwellian situation, where so much semantic effort and logical gymnastics are expended in making a developing human into an "un-person", modern anatomical, genetic, immunological, endocrinological and physiological facts are a persistent.

How much easier to echo that simple statment, "But there's nothing there yet", without pausing to reflect that if there is nothing there, then why the unholy rush to remove it? Nevertheless, not everyone is away with the fairies, and for the benefit of those still in touch with reality we can briefly review some aspects of intrauterine life.

Aspects of Intrauterine Life

We each began life as a single cell. Forty-five generations of cell growth divisions were needed to reach the 30 million million cells of an adult. Of these 45 generations of division, eight, or nearly one-fifth, have occurred by the time we were implanted in the uterus, 30, or two-thirds, by the time we were eight weeks old, 39 by 28 weeks' gestation, and 41 by the time we were born. The remaining tedious four occupied the whole of childhood and adolescence, and then there were no more.

This dramatic and rapid sequence of cell replications in early intrauterine life is matched by an equally dramatic and rapid differentiation and morphogensis.

He promptly [unclear: journey down the home for] capsule of fluid for himself.

By 25 days from conception, the developing heart starts beating, although two or three weeks must elapse before we can reliably detect heart beats with current technology. These first strokes of the pump are not associated with a circulation, but with an ebb and flow system as envisaged by physiologists before Harveian, for the cardiovascular system is initially valveless. But soon valves develop and, with a pump to provide a pressure gradient and valves to give direction, we have a circulation.

By 30 days, just two weeks past mother's first missed period, the baby - one quarter of an inch long - has a brain of unmistakable human proportions, eyes, ears, mouth, kidneys, liver an umbilical cord and a heart pumping blood he has made himself.

By 45 days, about the time of the mother's second missed period, the baby's skeleton is complete - in cartilege, not bone, at first; the buds of the milk teeth appear and he makes the first movements of his body and new-grown limbs, although it will be another 12 weeks before his movements are strong enough to be transmitted through the insensitive uterus to be detected by mother's sensitive abdominal wall. By 63 days he will grasp an object stroking his palm and can make a fist.

These structural changes, of course, are not mediated by any external agency, but internally, directed by the zygote and embryo. In this regard the zygote with his cargo of genetic information is much more than a mere blueprint of a new human.

A blueprint is simply a plan, and does not include the machinery to fulfil that plan - but a zygote does. He even has the power to phenocopy himself, to reproduce a sexually as about one in 400 zyogtes or embryos does in identical twinning - and there is no known external agency which affects the incident? of identical twins.

However our new human has in hand even greater designs and undertakings than simply his own internal organisation and development. He also develops his own life-support system, his placenta, and his own confines, for it is the embryo and fetus who develops his membranes, forms his amniotic fluid and regulates its composition and volume.

Women speak of their waters breaking and their membranes rupturing, but such expressions are so much nonsense - these structures [unclear: belong to the baby This reality]. Tests on the amniotic fluid are tests on [unclear: the not ex other. His own] anything to the chance co-operation or others, and therefore he must organise his mother to make her body a suitable home.

Achievements of New Individual

First, and most pressing, he must prevent the menstrual shedding of the endomentrium. He does this by producing chorionic gonadotrophin to prolong the normally strictly limited life span of the corpus luteum, which in turn maintains the endometrium to undergo a decidual transformation.

This is a splendid feat of power amplification, page 10 understandable in electronic circuitry and very common in physiology, whereby an embryo barely out of the microgram range influences the corpus luteum in the milligram range, which in turn affects the endometrium measured in grams.

Very soon the embryo bypasses the corpus luteum and takes over direct control of the endometrium from a very early stage of human pregnancy neither the maternal pituitary nor ovaries necessary for its continued endocrine success.

In this regard the explanations in a dozen textbooks of witch's milk, of sebaceous retention cysts, of labial hypertrophy and withdrawal bleeding in the baby girl as the result of fetal exposure to high levels of maternal sex hormones are quite wrong.

It is the mother who is exposed to high levels of fetal hormones, for these hormones are manufactured by the fetus and his own placenta. These hormones are influential beyond mothers pelvis, for they modify maternal cardiovascular, respiratory and renal (kidney) function to cope with fetal requirements.

Another crucial environemental problem which must be dealt with is the homograft situation - the fact that the fetus and his mother, inevitably immunological foreigners, would not exchange skin grafts and could not be safely given a blood transfusion one from the other, yet must tolerate each other's tissues in parabiosis for nine months of pregnancy.

Again it is the fetus, not the mother, who copes with the problems. And finally it is the fetus, not mother, who determines the duration of pregnancy, for unquestionably the onset of labour is normally a unilateral decision by the baby.

This relationship between a baby and his mother is clearly simply much more than simple biological parasitism The term parasite, so frequently used to describe the fetus, is often used, not in the limited biological sense, but with the sociological overtone of describing someone who takes all and contributes no-thing. Neither sense is applicable to the fetus.

True, he is parasitic on mother for his nutritional requirements. In the same sense many wives could be said to be parasitic on their husbands' incomes; but just as wives would indignantly maintain that they contribute much to a home and a marriage to justify their keep, and that really is what is involved in a division of labour, so also does the fetus justify his keep by organising and maintaining the pregnancy.

Such a relationship is more accurately described as parabiosis or symbiosis (living together), and physiologically there is no question who guarantees its success.

This concept, that the fetus is in command of the pregnancy, is hardly news to any mother with an un-planned pregnancy, but the idea is new and the consequences are far-reaching in obstetrics. No longer can we understand the physiology of pregnancy if we re-main in ignorance of the physiology of the dominant partner in that relationship.

All the problems in pregnancy which can be solved by pulling and pushing and cutting have been solved the only unsolved problems, spontaneous miscarriage, premature labour, toxaemia and so on, await a better understanding of fetal physiology.

These achievements of the fetus also cause us to reconsider another point - the concept of maturity. It is perhaps one of the misfortunes of medicine that we study our subject as young adults, and our standards of normality are those of the young adult - usually male. And it is a part of the arrogance of young adults to consider that the only people who matter are young adults.

Dark image of hands

Fetus Obviously Immature

Since maturity equals adulthood, the fetus is, by definition, immature, but immaturity acquires a nasty overtone suggesting inferiority. Thus the tendency has developed to consider the fetus, or neonate, as a poorly functioning adult rather than as a splendidly functioning baby.

Every age and stage of life has its excellencies and its weaknesses, and fetal life is no exception. We do not regard the fetal circulatory system, different as it is from the child's or adults', as one big heap of congenital defects, but rather a system superbly adapted to the circumstances under which a fetus lives.

We should not regard fetal and neonatal renal (kidney) function, assymetric as it is by adult standards (he handles a water load well, but not a solute load unless he has plenty of water), as inferior, but entirely appropriate to the osmometric conditions in which it has to work.

We should appreciate that the fetus has a much more prompt and reliable response to haemorrhage than adults, that a fracture which would incapacitate an adult for three to six months will heal in three weeks in a bandage in a baby, that the ability of a fetus to heal surgical scars or thermal burns would be the envy of a plastic surgeon. In these contexts at least, it would be more appropriate to consider the adult as a poorly functioning fetus.

Even when we accept that it is the fetus who is in command of the pregnancy, that it is mother, not baby, who is the passive partner in the relationship, people might still feel that the fetus is nevertheless but a new superconductor of some endocrine orchestra, a mindless programmed robot controlling his mother. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the fetus develops structures - including sensory structures, he uses them. Development of structure and development of function go hand in hand. Indeed, if the function cannot be served without developing a differentiating the structure, equally, without the stimulus of function the structure does not develop properly.

Further, we are aware in extra uterine life that every individual represents an interaction of nature and nurture, of environement and genetic endowment. The same is true in the uterus. The fetus does not live in a metabolic Nirvana, or in a dark and silent world, in a state of sensory deprivation. The uterus may buffer, filter, and distort the outside world, but does not eliminate it. Stimuli do reach the baby and he responds to them.

We know that fetal movement is necessary for the proper development of bones and joints, that the fetus without room to move or without muscles or nerves to move with, is born with severe restriction of range of joint movements.

We know that fetal comfort determines fetal position, that changes in maternal position provoke baby to seek a new position of comfort, that contractions and external palpation provoke fetal movement and that the fetus will repeatedly evade the sustained pressure of a microphone or recording.

We know how babies change ends in the uterus while they still have room - they propel themselves with their feet, either frontwards or backwards, and how they change sides - with an elegant longitudinal spiral roll, rotating first their heads, then their shoulders, and finally their legs.

In early prognancy the fetus is free to move as he pleases, and he does precisely that. He can turn complete flips in one and a half or two seconds. In late pregnancy, with increasing fetal bulk and diminishing amniotic fluid volume, there is less choice, but fetal comfort determines which way a baby will lie in late pregnancy and present in labour.

Of course, in selecting a position of comfort in late pregnancy, the fetus may have chosen a position which which is difficult or impossible for vaginal delivery. In this regard he can be accused of lack of foresight, but this is a trait not unknown in adults.

Thus the fetus is responsive to touch and pressure, simple facts confirmed by any obstetrician who has ever stroked the palm of [unclear: a]

Response to Painful Stimuli

The fetus also responds violently to painful stimuli - needle puncture and injection of cold or hypertonic solutions - stimuli which you and I find painful, children will tell you are painful, and the neonate, to judge from his responses, finds painful.

However, I have been told by advocates of abortion that we have no proof that the fetus actually feels pain. Strictly, they are quite correct. Pain is a peculiarly personal and subjective experience and there is no biochemical or physiological test we can do to tell that anyone is in pain - phenomenon which makes it very easy to bear other people's pain stoically, which is an important point for obstetricians to remember.

Image of feet

By the same token we lack any proof that animals feel pain. However, to judge from their responses, it seems charitable to assume they do. Were this not so there would be no point in having an organisation like the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I for one would be unhappy to think we would withhold from the human fetus a charitable consideration we were prpared to extend to animals.

The fetus responds to sound and light in utero. The fetus is startled by flash photography of a pregnant abdomen, and with a fibreoptic conduit and photomultiplier we can detect the shadow cast by the fetus on the posterior uterine wall.

In utero the light is shifted far to the red end of the spectrum and the fetus is using only his rod or low-light intensity vision, but if there is any light present at all there must be activation of visual pathways, because single-rod cells respond to single photons. The fetus lacks any images and sufficient light to practice cone vision, so that at birth he can see but does not know what he is looking at. Confident recognition of images takes five to eight months of extrauterine life to acquire.

With sound it is different, because intrauterine sounds have a pattern and a spectral composition not very different from extrauterine sounds, and the fetal inner ear or hearing mechanism is of the same magnitude and therefore responds in the same frequency range as children's or adults' ears.

It is easy to demonstrate fetal responses to external sound, and audiometric curves may be constructed by noting changes in fetal heart rate to pure tones presented by hydrophone or air microphone.

The fetus lines up under an image intensifier in a [unclear: responds to the] contribution to an orchestral performance and to the dentist's turbine drill. Both habituation and conditioning have been demonstrated.

However it is not simple external sound which bombards the fetus. The pregnant uterus itself is a very noisy place. The loudest sounds to which the fetus is exposed are maternal borborygmi peaking to 85 or 90 decibels, about the intensity of sound of traffic in a busy city street.

Reaching and below 55 decibels the content is richer in pattern and meaning, the intermittent voice and the all pervading vascular bruits pulsing in sychrony with maternal hear beat in the great arteries supplying the uterus.

We do not think it entirely chance that babies are lulled by holding them to your chest, or the old wives' page 11 alarm clock, or the modern magnetic tape of a heart-beat, that the tick of grandfather clock in a library is a reassurance rather than a distraction, that people asked to set a metronome to a rate which "satisfies" them will pick a rate in the 50 to 90 beat per minute range, and that the majority of drum rhythms in the world reflect the measured beat of a human heart. We think this rhythm is deeply imprinted on human consciousness from fetal life.

The fetus drinks amniotic fluid in a phasic pattern from at least as early as eight weeks' gestation. By the third trimester there is a fasinating variation, some babies coyly drinking 10 ml per hour, and others boozing away at 90 ml per hour, and this variation correlates well with independently assessed feeding performance in the nursery.

The fetus drinks more amniotic fluid if it is sweetened, less if it is given an unpleasant taste. He may get hiccups, easily recognised, and as these occur in an episodic or phasic pattern, commonly at the same time each day, we suspect that they are related to fetal drinking sessions, and that he is already experiencing some circadian rhythms, of his own or exposed to mother's.

All babies are experienced in swallowing at birth, and some also in suckling. In the neurological examination of the neonate the "seeking" or "rooting" reflex is elicited by stroking the circumoral area of the baby. He turns his head to the side of the stimulus and opens his mouth, obviously a reflex by which he homes in on the nipple, which is its size, consistency and colour is simply a homing device on a positive pressure feed system, the breast.

In so far as it is very common to see fetuses lying with hands and feet in close proximity to their faces, it is not surprising that they elicit a seeking reflex themselves. Therefore, it is not dymanic, plastic, resilient, in command of [unclear: his environment] and destiny with a tenacious purpose.

Awareness of Intrauterine Life

Of course, not everyone is aware of this picture of intrauterine life. A medical social worker in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Monash University, Melbourne, presented to women booking in at an antenatal clinic a blank diagram of a trunk and asked them to draw on it just where they thought their baby was and what it was like at their particular maturity.

She collected a fasinating assortment of amoebae, jellyfish and tadpoles located everywhere from the pelvis to the diaphragm. Such naivety is surprising but hardly alarming, because it is amenable to teaching and there are many excellent books and films as teaching aids.

More sinister is the attitude of people who do, or whould, know better, but choose to suppressor deny their knowledge. A Select Commission in South Australia in 1966, having to accept on the evidence before them that logically human life was a continuum, beginning at conception, then disarmingly remakred: "However, many people simply will not accept this conclusion", and proceeded to the novel argument that criminal law should be amended to cater for popular ignorance.

A less blatant but more persistent variant of this flat denial is seen int he use of words. Despite the time-honoured use of: such terms as "quick with child" and "heavy with child", the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child is criticised for bringing children into the issue of abortion at all. You may speak of terminating a pregnancy, not of exterminating the fetus.

Now pregnancy is a state, and a sell-terminating state at that - no pregnancy goes on forever. Sometimes in late pregnancy, with severe toxaemia, serious haemorrhage or fetal illness, we will deal with the problem by terminating the state of pregnancy, but not by exterminating the fetus - rather, we will energetically strive, and probably succeed, in saving the child.

Here a clear distinction is made between the pregnancy, the state, and the fetus, the entity. In the abortion argument this distinction is wilfully confused; but the facade cracked a little with the Edelin case: the defence was advanced that the abortionist was not required to expect the child would survive; indeed the whole purpose of the act was to guarantee that it did not.

Even the "liberal" interpretation of R.v. Bourne perpetuates the confusion for what Mr Justice MacNaghten considered was "the probably consequence of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a mental or physical wreck". In the vast majority of abortions nowadays no-one is suggesting that continuation of the pregnancy represents any particular risk to the woman. It is the survival of the child that must be prevented.

Others acknowledge the existence of intrauterine life, but qualify it in terms which suit their purpose in destroying it. One writer in the New Zealand Law Journal a few years back proudly paraded his elementary knowledge and ignorance of biology and medicine by suggesting that we should take an evolutionary view of abortion - that as the conceptus was in turn a amoeba, a jellyfish, a tadpole, a monkey, etc., so it increasingly deserved recognition and protection.

His argument, of course, is flatly contradicted by other abortion advocates, American researchers who insist the reason they must do research on human fetuses is because they are human, not animal.

However, apart from the absolute nonsense of this writer's premise, his argument has certain attractions if logically continued beyond the point where he found it convenient to abandon it.

If the human fetus were an animal, then its welfare might be entrusted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, where I feel it might well be safer than at the present mercy of the Health Department. Moreover the hackles of the SPCA would rise at the physical treatment it received.

Another qualification or disqualification attached to our developing human is that he is incapable of independent existence or is previable. However, the concept of independent existence or viability does not negate the existence or human-ness of under which that life can continue.

By the same token, as a [unclear: physio can] define quite accurately the [unclear: ph] conditions (and ridiculously [unclear: cir] they are) under [unclear: when the] lives of everyone here today may continue. Anyone proclaiming incapability of independent existance, even in a social sense, as a forfeiture of a claim to life should think carefully the next time they plan to call a doctor themselves.

Fetus as a Potential Human?

The definition of the embryo or fetus as a potential human or human being, or human life, is interesting if only because of the frequency with which it is used by doctors and biologists who probably would consider that they were speaking as scientists.

In the first place it is, of course, a non-definition it does not tell us what an embryo or fetus is, but only what it will become. But secondly, the world "potential" as Dr Diana Mason has already pointed out to this Commission, is not a medical or scientific term at all, but a metaphysical term. The corresponding terms in biology and medicine are growth and development, and if we speak of a growing or developing human, or human being, or human life, we have quite a different sense and we are back with reality.

However it is not name-calling which will harm the embryo or fetus. Rather, the necessity to deny medical and scientific knowledge of the fetus derives from the fact that the fate proposed for him has little or nothing to do with medicine or therapy.

Professor Sir Norman Jeffcoate, then President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, could state that in modern obstetrics not more than one pregnancy in 1,000 would justify contemplation of abortion. That would amount to about 60 pregnancies a year in New Zealand, but the Remuera Clinic or Aotea Hospital could dispose of that many in less than a fortnight.

When we care for pregnant women, when we diagnose and treat illness in unborn babies, medical and Scientific knowledge is essential. When people practice abortion, such knowledge is an emharrassment. The only thing medical about abortion is that doctors do them and must handle complications afterwards.

How severe mother's heart disease, renal complaint, diabetes or mental illness, no-one would be suggesting abortion was essential if the mother wanted the baby.

Regrettably, it is not just medicine and science which are perverted in the justification of the taking of human life in utero. Ethics, morality and legality traditionally were designed to protect others. In abortion they are invoked as a balm for the conscience of the wrongdoer.

In mathematics, science and medicine you may start with a premise of whose validity you are uncertain and expand it logically, searching for contradictions. Lack of contradiction does not prove that the original premise is valid, but at least it is some help on the way. It shows that at least the case is internally self-consistent.

However, for anyone who seeks the slenderest thread of consistency in the abortionists' case, the search will be a frustration and a disappointment.

We are told that to make a plea for the fetus is "emotional"; but every request for abortion is an emotional one, and I am unaware of any pro-abortion legislation anywhere in the world which was not introduced and supported by fiercely emotional argument.

We are told tha to attach any significance to fetal life involves a "value judgement"; but terms like "quality of life", "enjoyment of life", involve a value judgments which, like the values of the Values Party, are a great deal less charitable than a value which protects and cares for life.

We are told that the law on abortion must be interpreted "liberally" - but that the Hospitals Amendment Act must be interpreted strictly word for word - despite the obvious intentions of our legislators.

We have come a long way in fetal diagnosis and therapy in the last 25 years. We have also come a long way from the Geneva Declaration which stated: "I will preserve the utmost respect for human life from conception."

Strictly, we do not need to talk about the development of life. We need to talk about the protection of talk about the protection of life, because destruction of life is what abortion is all about.

This article and the submissions published earlier in the year from the Women's National Abortion Action Campaign (WONAAC) were paid for on a cost-of-production basis. The editor wishes to dissociate himself from specific graphics used in both cases.

Image of a fetus

page 12

THE CONTINUING ADVENTURES OF.... HAROLD HEADD WRITTEN AN DRAWN FER YEW BY... RAND HOLMES LATER SLAM ELMO?? WAS THE PLACE OPEN?? YEAH NAW! CHRIST'S TEETH! ...WHAT'S THAT!?? IT'S A PIG MAN! SEE... ONE OF THE BIG SPORES HAD THIS NATIVITY SCENE STILL O SET UP FROM XMAS ...AN LIKE IT HAD LIVE ANI-MULES ...SO I LIBERATED THIS-ERE PIG YEAH... WELL I CAN SEE IT'S A PIG... BUT WODDA YA GONNA NO WITH IT? I'M GONNA "OFF" THE SUNUVABITCH WITH YER 303 AN HAVE ME A MESS OF HOG JOWLS AN CHITLINS!! ...THASS WHAT I'M GONNA DO KLIK SZNURKK HONK CHOMF MUNCH CHEW SPLINTER NO! NO!... FER FUCKSAKE ELMO!... ONE SHOT OUTA THAT AN WE'LL BE UP TO OUR EARS IN "REAL PIGS"! GRUNK CHAWF SLUSP KA-CHUNK ON.... ...I'LL USE MY BELT KNIFE (MESSY.. BUT EFFICIENT!) HERE PIGGY PIGGY.. OMERE YOU LITTLE SWINE! IT'S NO USE HAROLD... I CAN'T DO IT!... HE KEEPS BLINKING THOSE BABY BLUE PIGGY EYES AT ME! SAUFFLE SQUEEEEE CHOFF MAGE CHOMP WELL JEEZUZ ELMO!... DO SOMETHIN!... THE LITTLE BASTARD JUST ATE MY NEW ROD STEWART ALBUM!! SHIT!... NOW HE'S STARTING ON MY MOTORCYCLE SEAT! TO BE CONTINUED

Photo of a woman wearing a dress and shawl with tassles