WTF?

Faithful blog readers, I need your help understanding something. My "gender" Google news feed has been blowing up lately with stories regarding the legislation of sex-based abortions. Apparently, such abortions have recently been ruled illegal in Sweden and legal in Oklahoma.

Now, I understand there being concern over sex-based abortions. Technology is advancing at a rate that allows possible potential parents to learn the sex of their fetus earlier and earlier all the time -- often with enough time to legally abort the fetus if they are unhappy with the sex. It is awful that anyone anywhere would value one sex of a fetus over another, and I get why people don't like that idea (I don't like it myself). In fact, we wrote about it a little bit on this very blog a while back.

What I don't understand, though, is how the motivations behind an abortion can be legislated. Isn't that like arresting someone for thoughtcrime? How can the state decide whether or not a pregnant person's motivations are good enough to warrant an abortion? I am seriously confused, so if any of you legal smarties out there have any insight, help a sister out.

At first, when I heard there was a video out there in response to the SNL/Lonely Island's Pet Shop Boys-esque "Jizz In My Pants" that was calling itself a "ladies' response", I was psyched. I love when funny ladies do things! And think of the hilarious possibilities to be had with a "Jizz In My Pants" response! So you can imagine my dismay when I learned that a) the video was written and made by a group of men and just features women, and b) the video is actually a commercial for the ridiculous fake engagement ring company Ms. Taken.

Peep the video, and then let's discuss:

I have watched this video (posted today on videogum) a few times now, and I still can't quite figure out what's going on:



My best guess is that a student on the mock trial team at his conservative college has to decide between winning his fake court case and pleasing his anti-choice hottie of a girlfriend. There seems to be some kind of a conflict with parents, as well. Another question I am struggling with is, How on earth did this movie get made? And why?

I wish I could say this looks like the best mock-trial based piece of entertainment since Mock Trial With J Reinhold, but it appears that Advent Films can't quite harness the amazing power of the mock trial. Also, they seem like conservative asses.

It's been a long, bizarre, offensive battle, but the results from last week's Offensive Commercial Showdown are in! With 27% of the vote, which ad reigns supreme as the most offensive? (Drum roll sound here, please...)



And the loser is... ORANGINA!!!



Thanks to everyone who voted! Watch (or re-watch) the video, see the uber-creepy "making of" the commercial, and nominate your picks for the next showdown, after the jump!