arma virumque cano (et alia)
Yup.I like this poster of 'rape nuts':http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/republicans-against-women-aka-rape-nuts.html
LTFO on the morning 11/7.
I don't know any details about the politicians in the poster so I cannot comment on them.I oppose abortion simply because someone forcefully ends a human life ... which is the definition of murder. And I oppose all forms of murder.A sexual assault is a horrific and tragic event for a woman ... and even more tragic if the women conceives. A women in that situation needs all the support, care, kindness, and encouragement that everyone can muster.That said, I draw the line at executing the baby -- who has done nothing wrong. All human life is extremely valuable and it is in everyone's interest to preserve human life -- even babies that haven't been born yet.
A cluster of cells is not a baby. It is an embryo that may or may not develop into a fetus, and then be born as a baby.We do not require ANY human being to submit their body to keep anyone else alive. Not by taking their blood for a transfusion without permission, not by taking their bone marrow, not by taking any organ or part of an organ, including those which can regrow like skin for a burn victim. The guilt or innocence, age, gender, race or life experience of the person who will die without some body part of service of a body part of another person does not in any way shape or form change that the other person's body is inviolate and their own.It is equally immoral, unethical and wrong to require a woman provide her uterus against her will for a cluster of cells that cannot survive on its own as an embryo, OR for a fetus.We have a standard for being alive human being in this country - it is the standard for determining death, a minimum level of brain function. It makes an excellent metric for when we should consider a fetus as a separate and living human being, which we do under Roe v. Wade.Abortion is NOT murder; if you disapprove, don't have one.But your beliefs lack any substantive or scientific basis other than an unsupported notion on your part. They merit no further consideration than those who believe the earth is flat.A woman who conceives out of rape deserves the choice of an abortion, not the additional victimization of having control of her body commandeered by religious right wing nut Republicans, who have tried to undermine the very definition of what rape is.In this country, in 31 states, a rapist can enforce joint custody and full visitation on women who give birth to a child out of rape. Those women cannot choose to put the child up for adoption without their consent either. This FURTHER victimizes women.So while your notions are well intentioned, they are in fact horrific and monstrous, not moral, not good, not life-affirming.Allow women the same right every person has in every other circumstance -- control over their body and the right to make their own decision based on fact and on their personal religous belief, not your misguided fact-deficient beliefs.
Cutting out the histrionic language, on this subject, Dog Gone, we agree. It's interesting to watch you argue in favor of personal choice in one case and against it in another. It's interesting how one human life is valuable to you--namely, a criminal who is attacking a good citizen--while another, the embryo or fetus, is not so much.
I'm guessing neonaticide is fine, too.orlin sellers
The woman has to have the choice, always.
A choice to have a tool to defend herself or a choice as to what to do with her body? On both, I agree. She has choice, and we have to respect that.
Dog gone,Yours and the current legal definition of a "human" is based on level of development, brain function, and/or viability of a baby to live outside of the mother. Those are poor definitions because they are incredibly subjective and subject to monumental changes as medical technology improves. They also open the door for parallel arguments. For example a 1 day old infant will quickly die if left on their own. And a person who is sleeping or in a coma has no cognitive brain function. And yet no one would condone killing them.Doing the right thing isn't always easy. Taking care of my children is extremely difficult and costly at times. Paying taxes really sucks. Charging an enemy line when your commander orders you to do it (in the military of course) which will very likely lead to your death sucks. We don't get a "pass" on those things because they are unpalatable. Human beings are valuable regardless of their level of development, brain function, etc. and while it might be very unpalatable for a woman to carry a baby full term, it's the right thing to do.In your world people only get rights if you approve of them. That opens the door for the Hitlers of the world to execute undesirable people -- whether they are mentally retarded, handicapped, of the wrong race, or in many countries in a mother who doesn't want them.To put all this in perspective, let's consider a simple example. Suppose a rapist brings his 2 month old infant along and rapes you in a remote cabin. Somehow you manage to kill your attacker and you are stuck in your cabin for the next week until help can arrive. Do you throw the 2 month old infant outside to die because it is the baby of your rapist and every time you see the infant, it reminds you of the rapist? Or do you do your best to keep the infant alive until someone can take it away and care for it?
Anonymous, can you hear me applauding your post? I am. Well done!orlin sellers
Thank you Orlin. I try my best to bring coherent, consistent, rational arguments to the world. If only the world were coherent and rational.I totally favor a woman's right to do as she wishes with her body -- unless her actions will kill a human whether born or yet to be born. It is the same standard to which I hold myself: I cannot wildly spray bullets into a crowd trying to stop a violent attacker because that would harm other people while trying to save myself.And now to head off the final assault from Dog Gone. In the one in 100,000 pregnancies where the mother will truly die if she does not deliver the baby, then go to a hospital, deliver the baby -- either naturally (induced if necessary) or via Caesarian section -- and the hospital can provide all reasonable measures to save the baby. With this route, the mother survives and the baby has a chance. I will not condone having the mother die with a baby still inside because both would die and that would be pointless.
"Coherent, consistent and rational," that's what you call that example of the rapist with a two-month-old in tow?And Orlin liked it.You guys are incredible.
MikeB,Of course the circumstances of my example are extremely unlikely. The likelihood of such an event isn't the point. The example simply removes arbitrary opinions about development, autonomy, and brain function to demonstrate the wrongness of throwing out a human life that has done nothing wrong.
I proudly concur with anonymoushttp://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Rape.jpgorlin sellers
Dog Gone said, "In this country, in 31 states, a rapist can enforce joint custody and full visitation on women who give birth to a child out of rape. Those women cannot choose to put the child up for adoption without their consent either. This FURTHER victimizes women."If that is accurate, it sounds deplorable and we should immediately change the appropriate laws. In my mind the rapist has no rights whatsoever regarding the future of the woman and the child.In instances where the woman was not raped, I believe the father should have full rights just like anyone else.The real ugly situation happens when a man did not rape a woman and she simply claims that it was rape allowing her to block the father's rights.
And the coup de grace:Dog Gone said, "We do not require ANY human being to submit their body to keep anyone else alive."Except we do. In the case of conjoined twins where both twins share one vital organ that cannot be split, separating the twins is not possible even if the twin with most of the body parts no longer wants to support the other twin.
Wow, I didn't realize that this was such a big problem in this country. Guess nobody ever heard of the "morning-after pill."But, that aside, wouldn't you think Maddow would do here research and include these folks in her nonsense.http://democratsforlife.org/Oh, that's right, she is simply a pathological partisan puke.orlin sellers
It is a problem in this country, and there is not ready access to the morning after pill. The right wing nuts want to make that, and birth control like the IUD which prevents implantation of a fertilized ova, as criminal and unavailable.While they are the exception rather than the rule, there are a few democracts who are anti-abortion. We have one running for our CD7 in Minnesota, for example. However they don't tend to be as extreme as the right wingnuts, and it is not a PARTY platform of the Democrats, which mean these are individuals who are deviating from the party positions not - like those pointed out by Maddow - taking them more extreme within the party. Unlike the righties that Maddow identified, they don't get major party support, or major super PAC support either.That is a significant difference. The woman is a highly regarded scholar for her recent book, a Rhodes scholar - which I'm guessing you're not. So you would seem to be the pathological partisan and demonstrably ignorant and not too bright 'puke' synthetic fluff for brains Orlon.
My darling DG informs me that, "there is not ready access to the morning after pill."Me thinks she knows not of what she speaks.http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/brands-USA.htmlyour dearest,orlin sellers