SD Reps: Abortion Illegal, Except For Religious Virgins!
Talk about politicians twisting their ideological lack of logic to further an agenda that is so hypocritical it makes for laughter induced vomiting. Although the South Dakota ban on abortion contains no exceptions for victims of rape or incest, according to Congressman Bill Napoli (R-SD), he feels that indeed there is an exception for such victims, only specific women though. Says the royal smart person:
A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
And if she was a rape victim who wasnt a virgin? or religious? What if she was only raped but not sodomized? What if she was religious but already married? Read for more idiotic republican quips about who qualifies and about how emergency contraception is permissible if a girl didn’t know she was possibly pregnant before theres enough time to actually get pregnant (ya think I’m kidding about that one?) [TTC Crosspost]
The guy was speaking extemporaneously about what qualifies as “saving the life of the mother” (in other words, how far that concept stretches) and came up with a paradigm example of someone who would be in very bad shape without an abortion. He didn’t say that his example was the only possible case. He didn’t make it part of the legislation.
Can’t you people read?
Yes and his whole scenario went to the concept of the life of the mother – in this case mentally/psychologically – which is the case for any victim of rape or incest, regardless of how severe the force was or what her sexual background was prior to the attack.
BTW, J – i did not want to clutter jewschool with this, but here is my response to some of your questions regarding the Reclaiming American for Christ argument – http://atowncrier.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_atowncrier_archive.html#114178629747370831
I think you are confusing two concepts – a possible rape/incest exception and a “save the mother” exception. In some cases you can have both – i.e. a rape and severe consequences to the mother if she doesn’t abort – bit obviously you often have one without the other. What’s your point?
As to the “reclaiming” stuff – saw your link. The language is a little strong for my taste, but what counts are the actual ideas being promoted. HOW does he intend to reclaim America? If through illegal, sleazy or anti-Constitutional methods, I’m with you on this. If through legitimate persuasion, I don’t really care. If through improving morals only, I’m with him. We need more info.
Bill Napoli is a state rep, not a congressman.
This is where we get into very complicated territory. Government’s job is not to enforce morality, because morality is subjective in some cases. This statement can’t be taken alone, because our legal and judicial systems are derived from Judeo-Christian tradition. On the other hand, there are certain concepts derived from that tradition that function mainly to ensure that society functions properly and does not descend into anarchy. Will allowing abortion lead to society’s decay? No, and I don’t think that that would be the case even in a moral sense. Abortion can exist in this country without destroying it. It is not some type of vigilante murder that is symptomatic of a society in which rule of law has broken down. While it may be done to excess (and Americans frequently do things this way, and it’s a major issue), it may also be of benefit and necessity to a woman. And to be honest, it often prevents the creation of another welfare dependent child whose maintainence will only cost the American public more tax dollars. Now no true conservative wouldn’t want that, right? There is a high possibility of the child leading a miserable life, with the mother having to prematurely face the burden of caring for offspring, if she even does act as the child’s guardian. And a woman who is not ready to have a child is surely not ready to care for one.
Plus, there is the whole wire hanger issue.
Matt-
This is certainly complicated stuff. But here’s where I disagree-
“On the other hand, there are certain concepts derived from that tradition that function mainly to ensure that society functions properly and does not descend into anarchy.”
Not descending into anarchy is certainly a major concern of government, but it can’t be the only one. What about protection of individuals even where most of society wouldn’t be affected and could continue to function? We could legislate, say, the extermination of a minority without causing society to fall apart, but clearly that’s not desirable.
“Will allowing abortion lead to society’s decay? No, and I don’t think that that would be the case even in a moral sense. ”
Arguable. I think it’s likely that easy abortion has led to a devaluing of human life across the board. Others disagree. But there are so many factors involved in gauging moral status of a country that neither I nor my opponents can prove our case.
“Abortion can exist in this country without destroying it. It is not some type of vigilante murder that is symptomatic of a society in which rule of law has broken down.”
Few pro-lifers argue that abortion will bring the country down. It’s about protection of individuals.
“And to be honest, it often prevents the creation of another welfare dependent child whose maintainence will only cost the American public more tax dollars. Now no true conservative wouldn’t want that, right?”
True conservatives will have to choose. And most of us choose to protect fetuses. (Libertarians may vary.)
“There is a high possibility of the child leading a miserable life, with the mother having to prematurely face the burden of caring for offspring, if she even does act as the child’s guardian. And a woman who is not ready to have a child is surely not ready to care for one.”
That is truly horrible. With that argument, you can justify killing infants, children or even adults. Kill the miserable! What a concept.
“Plus, there is the whole wire hanger issue. ”
Well, that’s a real argument. But if the fetus is a life, or even a maybe-life (my position), it would be wrong to abandon them because some individuals would undergo an unsafe, immoral and (soon, hopefully) illegal procedure.
Rational responses only, please. And the only people who can question my right to this opinion (as opposed to the opinion itself, of course; on that, fire away) despite my being a man who will never be pregnant are fetuses who have been aborted. The rest of you will never know the loss and pain of being aborted.
Ladies! Do not fuck this man!
Rational responses only, please.
And never confuse “ladies” with “feminists”.
J: Don’t flatter yourself. I hadn’t even read you, yet? I hope you support a better welfare state!
J, I’m at least glad that we both agree on the true value of comments that are free of absolute inanity!
Eek. I know that I sound dangerously close to legitimizing some sort of eugenics and genocide programs, but my point is to say why make such a fuss over abortion if, say, statistics show that a child who would have been otherwise aborted (must be awesome to be him!) is most likely to enter that sort of situation (I don’t know if such statistics exist). To tell you the truth, I’m not completely comfortable with that statement myself. There is an inherent moral issue with deciding who is worthy of living and who isn’t.
You’re right about a particular issue, about whether Americans might come to have less value for life. And if you look around today, we have become desensitized to many things. We have devalued sex (just watch an episode of Friends to see how lightly they treat the issue), and all too often to we hear about teenage behavior that is partly due to desensitization to violence, whether in movies or video games. I don’t want to blame violence and promiscuity on the media, but rather to merely suggest that sex and violence in the media are results of certain trends in society. Whatever the case, this all points to the danger of becoming less sensitive to serious issues. And that danger certainly exists if abortion is treated too lightly. But I really believe that it is up to the individual woman to decide whether to have an abortion or not. And hopefully, every woman that makes such a decision will do so consciously with an understanding of the gravity of the situation.
Personally, I do not like that we are rather uptight about these sort of situations. In other countries such as in Europe, there are looser attitudes about such topics. But then again, there are problems with that also. But I find it embarrassing that we are so hung up on these issues, especially when it comes from a circle of conservatives (not all) basing their opinions on their Christian beliefs. It’s a double edged sword in my opinion. On one hand, we’re still a little sensitive to issues about life. On the other, we’re way too uptight and feel the need to impose our own values on the system. I think that we should give the individual more responsibility. Especially when it is not absolutely determined whether abortion constitutes murder.
Napoli was speaking ‘extemporaneously?’ His remarks sound more like a perverted sexual fantasy. Perhaps he will also be joining the ‘moral’ Republicans who have taken up the pen to write porn — from Lynne Cheney’s porn lite, to Scooter Libby’s bestial rape of a 10 year old girl, by a bear.
Yes, indeed, it’s always proper for perverts to legislate morals.