Posted on January 28, 2011 by Dan (Fitness)
The exceptions for the health of the mother, rape, and incest are under attack. As the anti-abortion movement exposes its true face – a theocratic desire to control women’s reproductive options in all circumstances – they are also removing all pretense at compromise. The newly invigorated anti-abortion movement is going to oppose contraceptions. They are going to force children to give birth. They will fight tooth and claw to not only destroy Roe v Wade, but to go further and actively pass legislation making childbirth mandatory for any woman fertilized during sex.
This is the battle we are facing and to win it we need to pull its arguments entirely out of the shadows. (We also need a new consistent and memorable name for the anti-abortion crowd. Potentially “forced-birthers?”). When Republicans argue against contraception they are really saying “Women do not have the right to prevent themselves from being impregnated”. When they remove or reduce the rape exception they are saying “Women do not have the right to withhold consent from being impregnated”. A woman who is raped can go to the doctor and get medication to handle any std’s picked up – but will not be able to prevent pregnancy – even if that was the rapists aim. When conservatives oppose exceptions for the health of the mother they are saying “Women do not have the right to life saving medicine if they are pregnant”.
The right wing’s vicious new hard line on abortion is an assault on more than a woman’s right to choose to give birth or not. It is an assault on a woman’s right to live and aiding an abetting rapists at inflicting trauma. If we are going to win we need to tackle this extremism head on and aggressively.
Filed under: Analysis, Observations, Strategy | Tagged: Abortion, Crime, Feminism, human rights, Incest, Politics, Rape, Reproductive Rights, theocracy | 2 Comments »
Posted on July 9, 2010 by Dan (Fitness)
Sharron Angle is making public a textbook psychotic position on the horrible matter of incestual rape that leads to a pregnancy. Digby Reports:
Sharron Angle has a plan for girls who are raped by their fathers and get pregnant. Force the little girl to have a child and then adopt both of them out to a new family!
Angle: I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I’ll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said ‘I know what you did thank you for saving my life.’ So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life.
No word on what happened to the incest victim, but that’s really not something anyone should waste much time worrying about.
And anyway it just shows that God provides many good alternatives to abortion for for young girls who are raped by their fathers — perhaps we could just bend the rules a little bit and the little girl could marry her daddy so they could make a new family all their own.
That she leaves out the rape victim – aka the baby carrier (you know, the non-woman as per fellow Republican Christianist David Vitter) – is telling. Nuts like these really don’t give a shit about mothers. They aren’t anti-choice, they are anti-mother. And God help you if you become a mother against your will, or if becoming a mother poses serious health risks. Because they sure as hell won’t. At that point you cease to be a woman, cease to be a rape victim, and become an incubator.
Let’s put the positions of these religious nuts who advocate forcing raped girls to bear their father’s children into context. Consider the biblical story of Lot and his daughters. He offered them up to be raped by strangers, and later had offspring with them. Is this what religious conservative mean when they suggest using the Bible as a basis for law in our country?
Filed under: Analysis, Musings, Observations | Tagged: Abortion, Bible, Choice, Christianists, Christianity, Conservatives, Crime, Incest, Rape, Religion, Republicans, Sharron Angle, theocracy, Violence | Comments Off on Religious Conservative Incestual Rape Apologists